Midwives: Bullying
 - Question

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of bullying of students and newly qualified midwives in the NHS on (1) retention of staff, and (2) the treatment of pregnant women, as highlighted in the #Saynotobullyinginmidwifery report published on 12 November 2023.

Lord Markham: This report makes difficult reading, highlighting unacceptable levels of bullying in midwifery. We know that culture and leadership have a significant impact on retention and staff experience. NHS organisations should have robust policies in place to tackle bullying and harassment. Through the NHS long-term workforce plan and the NHS equality, diversity and inclusion plan, we are seeking to expand the workforce and make the NHS a better place to work.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As he says, all NHS trusts have those robust policies. The problem is that they are not coming out into practice. This report describes the experience of midwives working in a toxic culture. One newly qualified midwife is quoted as saying that they were left
“burnt out by bullying and the terror of working on understaffed wards”.
Another said:
“I would return home crying most days and became suicidal from the fear and treatment at this trust”.
Does the Minister accept that much more fundamental change is required to deal with understaffed maternity units, NHS trusts preoccupied with reputation management over patient safety, and a reluctance to take whistleblowers seriously?

Lord Markham: I thank the noble Lord for his work in this whole area. That is genuine appreciation, because I know that he looks not just at bullying in this area. He is a very important conduit and I am personally grateful for the work he does on this and how much he cares. It is a combination of all the things that he mentioned. I had a meeting with the chief midwife on this subject this morning because of it being brought to my attention. I was actually quite reassured. Each trust now has what is called a quad leadership team, where the chief midwife, a neonatologist, an obstetrician and the general manager spend time together in a six-month process where they work together as a team on how they will address all these vital cultural issues.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, among the very disturbing elements in this report is the way that midwives are bearing the brunt of the toxic culture and dangerously low staffing levels, which are causing over half of midwives to consider leaving their organisation. Despite what the Minister just said, the Ockenden report was over two years ago. Is he satisfied with this rate of progress? Should we not consider a statutory inquiry—a recommendation of this report—before more midwives leave and more babies die?

Lord Markham: We have the highest level of staffing ever in midwifery, 5% up on last year and 21% up on 2010, against a background of static births. I want to address that point on staffing; staffing levels are high. However, as the noble Baroness says, there are issues around culture. On the national inquiry, again, every one of those 150 trusts was visited by the CQC in the last year or so and action plans made on how to address this. We know what we need to do; we just need to get on and implement it.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his replies. I am much more grateful to the many midwives who have helped my family over the years. They give an extraordinary service. If we are not to have an inquiry, will my noble friend make sure that his ears and doors continue to be open when things are not going as well as they should? The NHS has a habit of closing doors on things and making it difficult to interact with it. Bullying is not the only problem. There is a succession of problems which need bringing out into the air, such as overmedicalisation, the failure to implement the better births policy, and the regulatory culture overseen by the NMC. The Minister could help with that.

Lord Markham: I agree with my noble friend. Over the last 18 months, I have appreciated the power of this House and of these Questions. Each time I get one, it sets off a process. In this case, I undertook to meet the Chief Midwifery Officer to make sure that feet are being held to the fire. I know that Minister Caulfield is doing this. It is to the credit of the House that it has this scrutiny role.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, my maiden speech in this House was on bullying in schools. Can the Minister tell me whether there is an anonymous hotline for whistleblowers to report unbecoming conduct in the health service? It is so important to have one.

Lord Markham: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. It is crucial. We have a whistleblowing system. It has had over 100,000 reported instances. We are trying to inculcate a culture where people feel able and free to stand up and point out an issue.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, workplace bullying is particularly toxic where managers are involved. This is where non-executive members of the NHS trust boards may come into their own if complaints involve  executive members. What is being done to help non-executive members of trust boards be more responsive and able to deal with bullying complaints?

Lord Markham: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. This is the role of non-execs. Having done a bit of work on the Lucy Letby case, I understand that the non-execs should have said something. Obviously, the executives should have found out, but the non-execs clearly had a role. This is an excellent question. I have to be honest and say that I need to come back on it, if I may, so that I can give the noble Lord a full answer and make sure that this is happening.

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we also need to tackle the conditions in which bullying can sometimes flourish? The Royal College of Midwives—the union representing midwives—published a report last week showing that over 100,000 hours of unpaid overtime are performed by midwives every week. Some 60% of midwives believe that staffing at their workplace is unsafe. Three-quarters of student midwives are expecting to graduate with £40,000 of debt. Surely it is time that we gave midwives the respect and the pay rise that they deserve.

Lord Markham: I agree. As ever with these things, there are a number of issues, of which pay is one. The introduction of the £5,000 a year support that we now give to all students is an important help with regard to debt. Work conditions are important, but key to it all is the culture. I have seen many examples where that has not been great. I was quite impressed by the Chief Midwifery Officer saying that every trust now has a midwife retention person whose job is to get into all these issues and make sure that they are addressed.

Lord Boateng: My Lords, how many of the midwives recruited to deal with the current midwifery crisis in the NHS were trained and qualified in the United Kingdom? On a recent visit to Ghana, I visited a child oncology unit, which, in the past year, had lost a fifth of its clinical nursing staff, who were trained, qualified and paid for by the Ghanian taxpayer—to the benefit of the NHS. How is that ethical or right?

Lord Markham: I will come back to the noble Lord with the exact number, but he is correct: the long-term workforce plan is all about making sure that we have the right resources and infrastructure to train the required number of people. Behind that, we have funded an extra 150 spaces this year and we have a target to increase them by 1,000 by 2026. It is absolutely as the noble Lord maintains: we are putting training in place domestically, as well.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does my noble friend share my view about the evidence that, when midwives and other clinical staff understand the importance of continuity, it leads to safer care and better outcomes for both the mother and the baby?  One of the midwives quoted in chapter 2 of the report that was sent to us—I thank my noble friend for that—says that working in a continuity team was the best, most rewarding time in their career. Continuity is absolutely critical; it comes up in a number of reports, some of which I have had a part in writing. We know that you need continuity if you are going to make a real impression on the midwifery service and that the women who are party to it must really understand what continuity does and can achieve.

Lord Markham: I thank my noble friend, who has been a tireless campaigner on continuity of care. I challenged the chief midwife on this just this morning, and the objective behind the long-term workforce plan is to make sure that we have the resources in place to maintain that, starting with ethnic minorities. We all know that there is a disparity of outcomes in terms of inequality, so the first priority for continuity of care is that setting, but the objective is to spread that across the whole system.

Immunisation: RSV
 - Question

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: To ask His Majesty’s Government when a decision on eligibility for a potential 2024 respiratory syncytial virus immunisation programme will be confirmed, and whether this will be aligned to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s September 2023 advice.

Lord Markham: The Government have made a policy decision on the eligibility of a potential RSV programme, which is in line with the JCVI’s September 2023 advice. We are working through the full business case, with costing and operational delivery, for final agreement in line with an autumn start.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: I thank the Minister for his Answer, but what plans and resources, both staff and finance, are in place to enable the immediate implementation of any RSV immunisation programme for young infants and older adults, in line with the JCVI’s advice, once the ongoing market engagement and tender process is complete?

Lord Markham: That process is absolutely going on at the moment, as well as operational delivery aspects. For infants, it depends on whether we choose a vaccine that goes into the pregnant mother or the infant, as the delivery mechanisms are obviously different. We are looking at the effectiveness of not just one vaccination versus the other but the delivery mechanism. There is a different delivery mechanism for the group aged 75-plus. The full programme business case is considering exactly that to make sure that we can deliver in the autumn.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, will the Minister commit to making the vaccination records for new programmes such as RSV available through the NHS app from the outset? I ask this as a parent who has just had to verify his teenage children’s MMR status by hunting down the red books last seen a decade ago to find the tatty piece of paper that is the only record of it. I now have a digital copy through my camera phone, but it would be much more useful to have this kind of record in the NHS app.

Lord Markham: It will not surprise the noble Lord to learn that I totally agree. It is absolutely on the road map. I cannot promise it is there today; it is more there for adults. The child digital red book is another objective we are working on, but that is taking slightly longer. But in terms of direction of travel—yes, absolutely.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on pursuing this even before we had vaccines available. Now we have succeeded in getting the vaccine, but why has 75 years been chosen for adult immunisation, when we know that the incidence and prevalence of RSV infections is much more common for over-65s?

Lord Markham: I too add my thanks; the noble Baroness is very good at holding our feet to the fire, and it is very important and appreciated. Regarding the age group, we are being guided by the scientific advice on what is most cost-effective.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, earlier this year we discussed the busy pipeline of new vaccines, including those for RSV, which, coupled with the concerning decline in the uptake of immunisation, does point to the need for a fresh look at delivery mechanisms. What steps are being taken to move beyond traditional arrangements, and when can we hope to see an improvement plan in place, in readiness for the RSV immunisation programme?

Lord Markham: Of course, the communication needed for each one is different, and that is a vital consideration. As I said, we found that, often, it is easier to put RSV in the infant rather than the pregnant mother. It is a question of considering which is the most effective way to get the best outcome and the highest take-up rate. That is one of the key criteria we are looking at. Regarding general communication, the noble Baroness will be aware that, on MMR, we have challenges in both London and the West Midlands. That has shown that you need other communication routes to get to some ethnic minority groups, using technology such as the app. There is no one silver bullet —you need a series of measures in place.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, is the Minister confident that the implementation programme will take place before the 2024-25 winter period, as promised in previous iterations of this Question?

Lord Markham: The goal is absolutely to make sure that the JCVI advice is there for the key winter period the noble Baroness mentions. That is the programme we are working towards, and this is where the logistics come in. It is not just about the effectiveness of each vaccine but, in terms of the maternal versus infant vaccination to which I referred, being confident of getting it in people’s bodies in time.

Lord Byron: 200th Anniversary
 - Question

Earl of Lytton: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mark the 200th anniversary year since the death of George Gordon 6th Lord Byron, which commences on 19 April; and whether they are providing support for the relocation of his statue from a traffic island in Park Lane in London.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the attention of the House to my direct descent from Lord Byron and my involvement with the Byron Society in London and also in Missolonghi, Greece.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, His Majesty’s Government appreciate the great interest that the bicentenary of the death of the sixth Lord Byron has generated, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. The continuing fascination with his life and works has cemented his status as one of England’s greatest poets, and it is absolutely right that his legacy be honoured. The Government fully support the relocation of Lord Byron’s statue into Hyde Park, led by the Byron Society. Once in situ, the statue will become a retained asset of the Government.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply, and particularly for his personal engagement and commitment to this. I draw to his attention that, in this House, in debate on 16 June 1958 about the then new Park Lane traffic scheme, Lord Mancroft, then speaking for the Government, said:
“It will be necessary to move one or two of the smaller memorials and statues, including Byron and the Cavalry and Machine Gun memorials, but, wherever possible, they will be re-sited in the vicinity”.—[Official Report, 16/6/1958; cols. 866-67.]
In the event, all were relocated, as far as I know, except Byron, which languishes in an isolated traffic island in the middle of Park Lane. In the light of the public fundraising that is going on to defray the cost of reversing both neglect and the fact that it has not been relocated as originally intended, and having regard to the bicentenary year, might the Government be prepared to assist financially in fulfilling the understandings given nearly 66 years ago, especially given that some department in the 1960s saved more than a bob or two  in not moving the monument? I further suggest that it would be a rather appropriate way of honouring one of the nation’s major poets.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Earl is right to point out that the Government have moved rather slowly in this instance. Part of the difficulty has been the question of the ownership of the statue. I am very pleased that my department has been able to break that impasse by taking responsibility for the statue, so that it can indeed be moved into the main part of Hyde Park. It is currently stranded on an island far less enticing and accessible than those of the Peloponnese that Lord Byron frequented. Once the statue is moved to its new location, subject to the planning permission which is currently before Westminster City Council, the Government are happy to treat it as a retained asset, which means that the regular maintenance will be the responsibility of the Royal Parks but any major repairs needed will be the responsibility of my department. I saw the chief executive and chairman of the Royal Parks this morning for a catch-up on progress. The fundraising effort is being led brilliantly by the Byron Society, which I am delighted is holding a dinner here in your Lordships’ House on Friday, the actual anniversary of Lord Byron’s death, which will be addressed by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia.

Lord Winston: My Lords, given the rise in traffic in London at present and the excessive traffic around that statue, and given equally the flamboyance of Lord Byron, would he not be rather grateful to be seen by as many people as he is, rather than being in Hyde Park?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As part of its plans, the Byron Society is preparing a programme of engagement and education, which is wonderful, so that in its new location the statue will be able to inspire future generations of poets and philhellenes, and of course be much more easily accessed so that it can be maintained and repaired.

Lord Roberts of Belgravia: My Lords, the siting of the Byron statue in the dual carriageway is mad, bad and dangerous to show. Does the Minister agree that the great British public, who have poetry in their souls, should go to www.thebyronsociety.com and help pay for the relocation to Hyde Park?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I congratulate my noble friend on his poetic exhortation. The Byron Society has received support from the Heritage of London Trust but welcomes support from members of the public. I would encourage them to do that, so that the statue can be moved, I hope in this bicentenary year.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, Ada Lovelace, who is credited with being the world’s first computer programmer, was Lord Byron’s daughter. Her achievements are truly remarkable and surely worthy of a prominent  statue in London, especially as there are more statues to animals in London than to named women. Does the Minister agree?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I certainly do. The noble Baroness is right to remind us that, sadly, Lord Byron’s marriage was brief and unhappy, but his pioneering daughter, Ava Lovelace, deserves recognition and to be remembered. Her portrait was hung in some of the state rooms in Downing Street until recently. It would be wonderful to inspire future generations of women and girls to go into computing, engineering and whatever field they choose.

Lord Baker of Dorking: Normally one is memorised in our country by a stone slab in Westminster Abbey. I think it is unlikely that the Church of England would welcome one for Byron, but he was, from 1809, when he went to Greece, a Member of this House, so could we not find a niche for him here somewhere? How many noble Lords can remember a Peer who sat in this House from 1800 to 1820? Are there any names to be offered? No. If tourists saw a statue of Bryon, they would find this House rather more interesting.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My noble friend makes an important point. Lord Byron made a number of contributions in your Lordships’ House, speaking in defence of the Luddites. He was politically engaged throughout his career. Of course, we recall his support for Greek independence—in fact, the marble for the statue was donated by the Greek Government in recognition of that. His legislative contributions bear rereading and remembering in Hansard.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Lord Byron is rightly canonised as being symbolic of the international contribution that UK art and literature make to the world. Byron himself once said:
“But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think”.
In Greece, they celebrate National Byron Day on 19 April. Does the Minister think we should have a Byron day to celebrate the arts and the contribution that they make to our industry and culture? Does he agree that it will take more than moving the statue to ensure that we continue to revive our cultural sector?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I hope that the campaign to move the statue into Hyde Park, where it can be seen and admired by more people, will help to inspire people into art, whether that is sculpture or poetry, and to investigate history. The efforts of the Byron Society to promote this legacy are important. Many towns in Greece have an Odos Vyronos—that is, a Byron Street. He is perhaps better commemorated in Greece than in the land of his birth. I hope that this bicentenary will help inspire new generations of admirers.

Earl of Clancarty: A wider concern here is the protection and conservation of all our public sculpture and heritage, from ancient to contemporary,  including concerns over stone and metal theft. Has the Minister seen the excellent recent report by the APPG on Metal, Stone and Heritage Crime and the important recommendations it makes in relation to heritage crime? Is the department working closely with the Home Office in this area, as well as with Historic England?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am happy to reassure the noble Earl that, yes, we are. Historic England does a great deal of work, working with police forces across the UK on this important issue. We have to protect our public statues from, alas, vandalism and theft, and from the challenges of climate change. On this, the department, Historic England and many others work closely.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: My Lords,
“To have joy, one must share it”.
That is a quotation from Lord Byron. He is hardly being shared where he is presently located. Indeed, the proposals to go to Hyde Park seem almost as bad. Will my noble friend the Minister look carefully at the activities of the Fourth Plinth Commissioning Group at Trafalgar—or “Trafulgar”—Square, where we have seen recently some very interesting choices being made as to who should occupy that plinth. In the final run-off, before announcements were made, it included a great sweet potato and an ice-cream van. Surely Lord Byron deserves better, and would be better placed there to give to the people of this country the joy that he wishes us to share.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: As Arts Minister, I am certainly not an art critic. I have always lived by the motto “de gustibus non est disputandum” when it comes to the selection of artwork. The matter of the fourth plinth is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, but I certainly share my noble friend’s hopes that, in moving the statue of Lord Byron to its more prominent place by Victoria Gate, more people will be able to admire this wonderful bronze work by Richard Belt, as well as the very kind Greek donation of the marble, and learn more about Byron’s life and works and be inspired by them.

Farmers: Flooding Compensation
 - Question

Lord Hain: To ask His Majesty’s Government what rules apply to compensation payments made to farmers affected by flooding from the Farming Recovery Fund and similar schemes.

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Farmers will receive payments from the new farming recovery fund for all land parcels that are flooded contiguous to a river with notably high river level gauge readings, following Storm Henk during  January this year. Currently, eligible areas are Gloucestershire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Somerset, Warwickshire, West Northamptonshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire. The fund remains under review and flexible as we ensure that it supports areas where farmland is most impacted. We are currently reviewing a further eight areas.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but why on earth are Ministers not fully compensating all farmers whose entire cropping land is submerged under water? They are at their wits’ end, refused compensation even when right alongside a major river because their farms are more than 150 metres from the centre of it. After six months of nearly solid rain—there has been nothing like that for nearly 200 years, says the Met Office—and with the climate emergency likely to make this a regular pattern, also threatening food production, surely farmers should be fully compensated now. We should bin these ridiculously restrictive rules, for goodness’ sake.

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Lord is right about the 150-metre restriction, which was lifted within 48 hours of that announcement. The farming recovery fund will pay farmers who suffered uninsurable damage from exceptionally high continued rainfall from Storm Henk in the period 2 to 12 January this year. The fund is a contribution towards the cost of recultivating whole land parcels flooded by notably high river levels caused by the storm. For grassland, the grant is towards the cost of recultivating grassland ready for reseeding; for arable land, it is for getting the land ready to plant crops. I appreciate the noble Lord’s point that there is extensive damage over a lot of areas, but it is not the Government’s intention or job to compensate every single farmer for all those issues.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, will my noble friend look kindly on the fact that livestock farmers are unable to put their sheep and lambs on to the fields because the fields are simply too wet? That is going to have devastating consequences for the livestock industry in North Yorkshire and other parts of the north of England. Will he agree to be less prescriptive with the criteria set out in the farm recovery fund? Will he go further and recognise the role that internal drainage boards play—I speak as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities —in regular drainage maintenance and recovery after floods of minor watercourses? Will he look to create more of them where it is appropriate to do so?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I am particularly sympathetic to the issue of livestock farmers, being one myself. As I explained in my opening comments, that fund is restricted to a number of areas at the moment but we are exploring what else we might apply it to. There are a number of funds that the farming community can use, and this is just one of them. The flood recovery framework covers the business recovery grant. It also includes the property flood resilience repair grant, and it provides for business rates relief from local authorities.

Bishop of Newcastle: Climate change and global events have exposed the vulnerability of relying on imported foods. Given the extreme weather events and flooding, the likelihood that this will continue and the impact on farming, what plans do the Government have in place to ensure food security?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The right reverend Prelate is entirely right to raise the issue of food security, which is high on the Government’s agenda. Through our environmental land management schemes, we are ensuring that food production remains constant. We also have the food index, announced by the Prime Minister at the NFU conference in January, to measure the amount of food that the country is producing and ensure that it remains constant.

Baroness Bakewell: My Lords, to follow on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the announcement by the Prime Minister in February of £75 million funding for internal drainage boards is to be welcomed. There are 112 independent IDBs in England. The consultation on the alternative valuation calculation statutory instrument is due to end this Friday. Is the allocation of the £75 million dependent on the outcome of the consultation, or has the money already been allocated and distributed?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I thank the noble Baroness very much for her question. I do not have the exact answer so, rather than perhaps mislead her and the House, I will endeavour to write to her very shortly.

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock: In Princetown on Dartmoor, near where I live, 122 centimetres of rainfall was recorded from 1 to 12 April; the normal average for the month of April is 90 centimetres. The extreme rainfall illustrates that where flooding is occurring it is the result of streams and rivers breaching banks, affecting far greater areas of farmland than previously recorded. Planting is simply impossible and grazing some animals is extremely difficult. In the interests of the mental health of farmers and to reduce the number getting out of farming, can the Minister explain how quickly the Government will revise the current payment system?

Lord Douglas-Miller: I have recently attended a number of meetings on this specific subject, and the intention last week was to get the first element of this fund out and available to farmers. We have this issue under constant review and I hope that, if there are further announcements to make, we can make them very shortly.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords—

Earl Cathcart: My Lords—

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, shall we hear from the Labour Front Bench and then my noble friend?

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I come back to the right reverend Prelate’s question about food security. The Minister talked about food production being constant and mentioned ELMS, but that also looks at flood relief schemes for farmers that take more land out of food production. The increase in climate change and the storms we have been seeing have really worrying implications for food security, and I genuinely do not think that measuring food production constants is going to solve the problem. We need a long-term food security plan that takes account of the implications of future storms and flooding.

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Baroness will be very well aware that there is a trade here between the environmental gains we are looking to enact and protecting our food production. One of the main aims of ELMS is to improve productivity, and a lot of the funding through ELMS is driving better productivity—higher yields from smaller areas of land—so that we can then allow land to be available for nature and improve our biodiversity.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I am a farmer and luckily my crops are all planted, but many farmers are not so lucky, with fields that have been underwater since October. Even fields that have not flooded are too wet now to plant. Many farmers find it very difficult to get any information on the flood recovery scheme and to know whether they are eligible. What are the Government going to do to help them?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The Rural Payments Agency is contacting all eligible farmers to remove the burden of the farmers themselves having to contact the RPA. The RPA has a range of measures to look at these issues—aerial photography, digital mapping and local knowledge—to assess who is eligible, and it will contact farmers directly. Any farmer who feels that they should be eligible and has not been contacted by the RPA may, of course, contact it directly.

India: Freedom of Religion or Belief
 - Question

Bishop of Winchester: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of freedom of religion or belief in India.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: My Lords, India is a multifaith, multiethnic democracy and remains among the most religiously diverse societies in the world. It is home to 966 million Hindus, 172 million Muslims, 28 million Christians, 20 million Sikhs, 8 million Buddhists and 4.5 million Jains. India is committed via its constitution to freedom of religion and belief. Where specific issues or concerns arise, the UK Government of course raise these directly with the Government of India.

Bishop of Winchester: I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Disturbing reports of violations of freedom of religion or belief in the Indian state of Manipur over the past year have been rightly highlighted by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance —of which the UK is a member, under the leadership of the Member of Parliament for Congleton, Fiona Bruce MP, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his support for the Bill to place the vital international role of the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on FORB on a statutory footing? I hope to bring that Bill forward to this House in the next few weeks once it concludes its current stages in another place. The statutory establishment of this role was a recommendation of the Truro review that I was honoured to author, the implementation of which remains government policy.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I can certainly give the right reverend Prelate that confirmation. I very much agree with the Bill. In fact, I insisted that it went forward with government support. Fiona Bruce does an excellent job in this regard and, for the first time, one of these governmental envoys will be placed on a statutory footing. That reflects the importance that we in this Government and in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office attach to celebrating freedom of religious belief. She does a great job and should be able to do it on a statutory basis.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the noble Lord build on the success of his department at the 2022 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in managing to include in communiqué the words,
“freedom of religion or belief are cornerstones of democratic societies”,
and will he encourage his officials on two things? The first is to emphasise that this is not exceptionalism and that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that everyone has the right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief—is about every human being’s right. Secondly, there is empirical evidence that shows that those countries which promote freedom of religion or belief are the most prosperous and most stable in the world. If we look at factors such as the 114 million displaced people in the world, we see that they are often in countries where there is not such freedom.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: The noble Lord speaks with great passion and knowledge about this. My department takes this very seriously: not only have we set up the envoy and are putting that into legislation but we have dedicated staff in the FCDO who look at freedom of religious belief. My noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon led at the United Nations Security Council in June, together with UAE, in defence of a motion on freedom of religious belief. Of course, in response to the report by the right reverend Prelate when he was the Bishop of Truro, we commemorate Red Wednesday—I want to reassure my noble friends that this is not a political moment; it is a moment when we celebrate and make clear how important it is that people have freedom of religious  belief, and how we stand up for those being persecuted for their beliefs. I think that on the last occasion of Red Wednesday, we lit up the FCDO in red—something which, in other circumstances, I hope is not going to happen any time soon.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, it is almost exactly 10 years since the Minister stated, in the other place, that the mass killing of tens of thousands of Sikhs in 1984 was one of the greatest blots on the history of post-partition India. It is true that India has what is called a secular constitution, but since then, we have had the riots in Ayodhya where tens of thousands of Muslims were killed; then we had its Home Minister describing the Muslims as termites; then a Hindu temple was built on a razed mosque. Christians have been persecuted again and again, and Sikhs are told that if they behave like Hindus, they are fine; otherwise, they are termed separatists. Does the Minister agree that India is a member of the Commonwealth, and should not freedom of belief be at the forefront of the Commonwealth charter?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will never forget the visit I made to Amritsar; it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been to and one of the most peaceful places, but, of course, it is important that we acknowledge what happened there and how wrong it was. The noble Lord makes important points about the importance of religious tolerance and freedom of religious belief in India. There have been occasions on which it has been something we have raised with the Indian Government. That should continue.
The original question was about the situation in Manipur. A very good report on that has been written by David Campanale, which I have studied. It is right to say that we should not downplay the religious aspects of some of this strife. Sometimes it is communal, tribal or ethnic, but in many cases, there is a clear religious part of it. We should be clear about that.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, perhaps I may broaden the Question out to an issue that I think is close to the Foreign Secretary’s heart: the delivery of the sustainable development goals. Religious tolerance is important in creating a secure world. He will be aware that India will be key to delivering the sustainable development goals. Could he inform the House of any discussions he has had recently with the Indian Government on how they can play a role, with us in partnership, to ensure that they are delivered?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: We have an excellent dialogue with the Indian Government in all sorts of ways. In fact, I spoke to Foreign Minister Jaishankar at the weekend. My noble friend Lord Ahmad visits frequently and has a very deep dialogue. I have a good relationship with Prime Minister Modi, and we discuss all these things.
In terms of meeting the sustainable development goals, the most important thing India can do is to continue to grow and lift people out of poverty. I think it is true that there are more people in India below the  poverty line than in sub-Saharan Africa. The need for India to grow and pull people out of poverty is great. Obviously, one thing we will discuss at the G20 and elsewhere is how to scale up the multilateral development banks, in which India has a voice, to make sure that we have the financing available to meet those development goals.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, the democratic elections in India are a positive for the whole world and are to be commended to the Indian authorities. But all too often there has been harassment and intimidation by the Indian Government when there has been reporting of human rights concerns, as well as freedom of religion concerns, including the necessity for the BBC uniquely to restructure in India so that it is no longer operating there like it operates in any other country. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we are not offering market access to India for media, data and telecoms on an unequal basis? The freedoms that we should enjoy in this country when it comes to the BBC and open media to report human rights concerns should exist in India also. We should not give preferential market access here when we are not offered it there.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: The noble Lord makes a very good point about the rumbustious nature of Indian democracy. India should be proud of being the biggest democracy in the world. As with all democracies, there are imperfections—as there are in our own country. We should celebrate the scale of India’s democracy.
The point the noble Lord makes about the BBC is important. My understanding is that India passed a law insisting that digital media companies had to be Indian-owned, and the BBC has had to restructure on that basis. That is not the British way—insisting that all media have to be domestically owned—although I know that some in this place and elsewhere have been tempted by those moves; I have sometimes fantasised about that when reading things that I have read. None the less, that is the reason why the BBC has restructured, together with some disagreements with India.
I will take away and look at the point that the noble Lord then made about the trade deal. My understanding of where we are with the trade deal is that good market access has been offered on both sides, but not quite enough yet to secure a deal. It is important with such trade deals, as you only really get one proper shot at it, to make sure that it is a good enough deal that will be welcomed by industry leaders here in the UK as offering real market access. On the point on media access, I will have to go away and look at that. Personally, I would say that we should open up media access on both sides to make sure we have a good plurality of media.

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee: My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his continuing focus on Christian persecution and his comprehensive Truro report. In that report, it is noted that Foreign Office staff are often not equipped to deal with these terrible issues. A recommendation was  made for mandatory training for all FCDO staff on religious diversity and inclusivity. The current training is not mandatory—perhaps the Foreign Secretary could tell us why.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I shall have to take that one away and look at it. There is a lot of diversity training in the FCDO, and there is a dedicated number of staff for dealing with freedom of religious belief questions, but I shall certainly ask the specific question about whether the training is included in this area.

Ukraine: Support
 - Question

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what action the Government are taking to maintain moral and physical support, in the United Kingdom and internationally, for Ukraine’s war against the Russian invasion.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: My Lords, no country has done more than the UK to maintain physical and moral support for Ukraine. Our military support has made a critical difference on the battlefield and paved the way for others to follow; our fiscal support has helped to keep the Ukrainian economy going; the British people have invited over 280,000 Ukrainians into their homes; and this July we intend to sign a hundred-year partnership agreement to demonstrate that a century from now the UK and Ukraine will still be standing shoulder to shoulder.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: I thank the Minister for that, and for his efforts in the States recently. As he says, it is imperative that moral as well as military support is maintained, not just to reassure Ukrainians that we will back them till they win but to make sure that Russia knows that we will do that too. Given that the Kremlin watches our every move, would not a multi-year commitment have given a clearer signal to Putin that we were there until Ukraine won, rather than the programme for just one year and £2 billion that was announced?
I have just come from a meeting with a delegation from the Polish parliament, which thanks us for all the things that the Foreign Secretary has said and was full of praise for us. But those parliamentarians from Poland noted, interestingly, that they had not prepared their people for what happened in February 2022. They said that the challenge now was for all of us to persuade the people of our nations that this fight is worth it. Will the Foreign Secretary make the case domestically to stand firm against Putin in the interests not just of Ukraine but of the whole of Europe? Ukraine is actually fighting our war.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I thank the noble Baroness for her question. One of the strengths of Britain’s position in this regard is the huge cross-party support for our backing for Ukraine. One can argue that multi-year packages would be even better than individual-year packages, but I think that Ukraine is and should be confident that we will go on providing the right level of support in this country in the years ahead. Of course, we do not know what that right level will be.
As for talking about keeping that support in the UK, as the noble Baroness rightly does, I think that there is an innate understanding in this country about the danger of giving into bullies in Europe. We learned that lesson in the 1930s, when appeasing Hitler did not bring peace—it ultimately led to war. The way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them and be strong, which is what this Government are doing.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in addition to the obvious need of Ukrainians for combat aircraft and munitions, in the present situation can we at least make sure, with our allies, that they obtain the kind of super-efficient anti-projectile and anti-missile system as seems to be available to the Israelis? Can we ensure that the same standards are provided to the Ukrainians? Their system is good, but clearly it could be better still, and should we not work on that?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: At the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, there was a very clear request from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister for two things: first, the artillery shells to make sure that Ukraine stays in the fight against Russia in the days ahead but, secondly and crucially, air defences, particularly Patriot missile systems, which have been so effective. I know that action is being taken by us and others on both those subjects to make sure that we do everything that we can. My noble friend is absolutely right to point out how effective the Israeli anti-missile system was, and it shows what can be done if you have the right resources in place.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminds us about the UK commitment to Ukraine, and it is absolutely right that we keep focused on that. However, events at the weekend, and the fact that those Iranian drones did not succeed, remind us that many of the drones sent towards Ukraine from Russia are actually Iranian. What are His Majesty’s Government doing with allies to look at the relationship between Iran and Russia, and whether there is something that we can do, because we should not look at these incidents in isolation?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We do not look at these things in isolation; in the contacts I have had with the Iranian Foreign Minister, we repeatedly make the point that supplying weapons to Russia is unacceptable. Over and above that, we are putting sanctions in place on every country and company that we can which we find is supplying these weapons. I am about to spend time at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting, where there  are specific proposals to look at what we can do together to make clear to the Iranians that there will be consequences if they continue to supply drones and more substantial missiles to Russia. We are working together on this and recognise the importance of dealing with it.

Lord Ravensdale: My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. The UK led the world on legislation to ban Russian oil imports in 2022, but we still import Russian nuclear fuel, which is a major energy security and national security issue for this country. It is not due to be phased out until 2030. Does the Minister agree that we urgently need to legislate to bring this date forward to the near term, as our allies in the US are doing, with all the attendant benefits for our domestic industry?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I certainly agree that we should look at this. We have been effective at taking Russian gas and oil out of our system and it is pretty remarkable what steps have been taken across Europe to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas. Just last week, we made an announcement about excluding Russia from the London Metal Exchange and other related exchanges. This is the next area that we should look at. I have had a letter from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister that I saw just this morning about this issue. We will certainly take this away and look at it. It is the responsibility of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, as it deals specifically with Urenco, the company that delivers our nuclear fuel, but we will take this away.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s continued unity with the Opposition. We are at one with the Government on defeating Russian aggression. He said recently that we will ensure that Russia pays for its aggression through the use of frozen assets and that he would seek unity between the G7 and the EU. Can he update us on that? I have raised frequently with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the £2 billion from the sale of Chelsea, which is still languishing somewhere. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on that and say why we cannot ensure that this £2 billion is used for the immediate support of the people of Ukraine?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I can certainly update the House on both those issues. I have been perhaps one of the most enthusiastic about using the frozen Russian assets; you know that Russia will have to pay reparations, so you should give the money now to Ukraine and get it paid back by the reparations when they come. The difficulty is in getting consensus around the EU and in the United States. To be fair to European Union countries, the majority of the sovereign assets are in their countries and they have a direct interest in it, particularly Belgium and the money in Euroclear. I think there is an emerging consensus that the interest on those assets can be used to support much larger financial support for Ukraine, so I am confident that at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting and the G7 meeting there will be an answer around which America, the UK, France, Germany and others  can coalesce. If we can get that done, we will be able to provide real financial firepower to Ukraine based on those assets, rather than delivering the assets directly.
The Chelsea situation is immensely frustrating; as the noble Lord says, what could be as much as £2.5 billion is sitting there in potentially one of the biggest charitable organisations in Britain, and it is very frustrating that we cannot get the money out of the door. The disagreement is over whether all the money has to go into Ukraine for the benefit of the people in Ukraine who have suffered from the war or whether any of it can be spent in other countries—although not Russia or Belarus—that have suffered from the Ukraine war. That is the difficulty with the people who set up this trust. We have to resolve that with the European Union and Portugal, where Abramovich has citizenship. We are working very hard because I do not want month after month to go by while the money has not got out of the door. It is difficult to get everybody into alignment, but we are on it.

Baroness Meyer: My Lords, if we believe that Putin is a threat to the West, should we not start thinking about defending ourselves? If so, has my noble friend the Foreign Secretary considered following the Swedish example of a total defence service, including a selective system of conscription? It would, at any rate, bolster young people’s self-confidence, teach them to work in teams and give them the skills necessary to find a job once they leave the service.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: Interestingly, I had lunch with the Swedish Foreign Minister yesterday to celebrate Sweden’s accession to NATO. It is an incredibly capable country. As it is financially robust and has very good armed forces and superb equipment, it will make NATO a lot stronger. I will not be tempted down the line of national service, but we will clearly need to improve the way that we encourage people, including young people, to join our Armed Forces and make sure that we get people to join our reserves and meet all our targets. The core of our effort is towards our highly professional Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, which are the key to our defence.

France: Security
 - Question

Lord Owen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs when the next bilateral is planned between the United Kingdom and French governments on security issues, and whether it will involve the President and Prime Minister as well as the two foreign secretaries.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: My Lords, last week, the Prime Minister and President Macron spoke on illegal migration and European security. On Thursday, I will speak to Foreign Minister Séjourné at the G7. I am confident that the  Prime Minister and President Macron will meet again in person before too long. My colleagues, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary, and their teams similarly maintain regular, action-orientated dialogue with their French counterparts.

Lord Owen: In light of the forthcoming elections in the United States and the constant reiteration of senior Russians that tactical nuclear weapons should be used in their invasion of Ukraine, would it not be a very good thing if the French and British Heads of Government got together and discussed their own targeting strategies for the nuclear weapons they possess in Europe and give some guidance—to Europe, to the rest of the world, and, above all, to the Russians—about their attitude to this constant invocation of nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I thank the noble Lord for his question; he clearly has huge experience in this area. The Lancaster House agreement that I signed with President Sarkozy in 2010 expressly sets out areas where Britain and France will collaborate, including the most sensitive areas of nuclear weapon research and nuclear weapons. If what he is saying is that we need to enter into deeper dialogue to think about these things in the future, I agree. Britain’s nuclear deterrent is declared to NATO, and I am in favour of us having deeper conversations with the French about that.
I still maintain that one of the aims of NATO is, as Pug Ismay put it,
“to keep the Americans in … and the Russians out”.
That is still absolutely key to NATO’s future. I missed out a bit of that quotation, the noble Lord will be pleased to note. One of the things we must do is to make sure that we are talking to all parts of the American system, to make sure that NATO is in the strongest possible shape in its 75th year, with more members and more members reaching 2%, so that whoever becomes President at the end of this year can see that NATO is an institution worth investing in.

Lord King of Bridgwater: In an earlier incarnation, I had the opportunity to introduce the French Minister of Defence to our nuclear facilities and visited Saint-Nazaire, where the French showed me their facilities. It is on the importance of that background of our nuclear collaboration that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is absolutely right. It is a background against which the United States is perhaps showing less interest in NATO, and its future involvement may not be so obvious and immediate. That makes it clear that the nuclear arrangements and nuclear understanding between this country and France are of manifest importance. The Heads of Governments and the Foreign Secretaries of both countries need to be very closely involved against the dangerous situation that we face in Europe at the present time.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: Again, the noble Lord has huge experience of this. This is a great year for Britain and France to be talking about these things. It is the 120th anniversary of the entente  cordiale, we will be commemorating D-Day again in June and there are the French Olympics, which I am sure will be a great success—we are helping France with security and other issues. So of course that dialogue, in line with the Lancaster House agreement and its renewal, will be part of it.
However, it is important that we try to encourage America to see NATO as a huge positive. One must not overinterpret this, but it was good news when yesterday the US Speaker of the House of Representatives made this remark about the Ukraine funding:
“We have terrorists and tyrants and terrible leaders around the world like Putin … and they are watching to see if America will stand up for its allies and our own interests around the globe, and we will”.
When asked about the Ukraine funding, he said that he expected to bring it forward this week. So there is positive news. Therefore, as well as all the things we should be doing with European partners to strengthen NATO, we should do everything we can to encourage America to see it as part of its defence as well as ours.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we now know that the fourth meeting of the European Political Community summit will take place in Blenheim in July. The European Political Community is one of Macron’s major initiatives to encourage all European countries to work together on security and, in particular, to form a British-French partnership in leading European security. Can the Foreign Minister tell us when the Government will tell us more about what the agenda will be, and how far they will consult with other parties about this particularly important multilateral summit, in which Britain and France will play leading roles?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: First of all, I am delighted that the meeting of the EPC, the European Political Community, is going ahead. I am also delighted that it is at Blenheim, because that is in my old constituency and is one of the finest places in Britain to hold a summit. We will not necessarily remind all the participants who was on which side at Blenheim, but I am sure we can find a way through that. In fact, there were Germans on both sides, so perhaps that will help. We will certainly talk about security and Ukraine, and I am sure that there will also be discussions about the issue of illegal migration, which we are all wrestling with around Europe. However, I am sure the Prime Minister will have more to say about it closer to the time.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I do not disagree with the Foreign Secretary about the importance of the United States, but, whether we like it or not, we are in a context where future US leadership can be hoped for but not relied upon. In such a context, defence co-operation and co-ordination between the UK, France and the wider EU is crucial. President Macron has said:
“Our partnership with the United Kingdom must … be raised to another level”.
Given that openness to a deeper defence and strategic relationship, what discussions have the Government had with France and other European allies in respect of the important issue of co-ordinating defence production  to ensure that our procurement harmonises rather than conflicts with the proposed European Defence Industry Programme?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: That is a very important question. The way that the UK has worked with other European powers in response to Ukraine has shown that, although we are outside the European Union, we can work together very effectively and put in place arrangements such as those around the Wiesbaden arrangements and others that work extremely well. Of course we should look at what other co-operation and collaboration we should do, but quite a lot of clarity will be required, including about the European Defence Industrial Strategy and on what terms it should be open to non-EU members. Collaboration makes sense only if we are acting in a way that not only benefits our own industries as well as other European industries but is open to collaboration with others at the same time. So far, from everything I have seen in this job, I can say that where you have good ad hoc arrangements and can make them work, that may well be better than a very structured and potentially rather bureaucratic dialogue—unless you are really getting what you want.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, one area that the United Kingdom and France have worked closely together and given leadership on is nutrition. I was very pleased to see that we have now got a date for the Paris Nutrition for Growth summit, which will take place not this year, sadly, but next year on 27 and 28 March. Will the Minister be raising support for the Nutrition for Growth summit when he meets his counterpart? Will the Prime Minister be involved, to ensure that the leadership that both countries have given in alleviating the world’s problem of malnutrition is delivered properly and that we remain supportive?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I certainly will raise that with my European counterpart, Stéphane Séjourné. The first of these summits happened at the London Olympics in 2012, partly because it was a very important issue but also because we knew that Brazil, which has a very deep concern about this issue, was going to host the next Olympics and we could create that momentum. It was more difficult in Tokyo because of Covid and everything else, but this is a good opportunity to get this back on the road and I will certainly raise it with my counterpart.

Lord Polak: My Lords, surely there was no better display of French-British co-operation than in the skies of the Middle East on Saturday night. Will the Foreign Secretary discuss with his French counterpart how we can increase the pressure on the regime in Tehran so that it might allow the region to live in peace?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: My noble friend makes a very good point. In our case, the Americans asked us to backfill their operations, in our joint Operation Shader, where we have been running a counter-ISIL, counter-Daesh operation in Iraq and Syria for many years now. We are delighted to do that,  to free up more of their planes to defend Israel. At the same time, we told our pilots that they should shoot down any projectiles coming Israel’s way in the process. That is exactly what they did, with great skill and ability. My noble friend is right to say that Britain and France can work very closely together on this agenda.
We have sanctioned hundreds of people in Iran. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. We will be discussing with the French and others further steps to discourage Iran from this behaviour and further sanctions that should be put in place. We also need to look at the work that we do together at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where we need clear resolutions when Iran is in breach of the promises that it has made. The point that he makes more generally is right. When you look at this region, who is funding Hamas? Who is funding the Houthis? Who is funding Hezbollah? In every case, the answer is Iran.

Council of Europe: 75th Anniversary
 - Question

Baroness Chakrabarti: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what plans he has to mark the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of London establishing the Council of Europe on 5 May.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in particular, who is not currently in his place, for becoming impatient and intemperate during yesterday’s Oral Questions. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I am worried already.
We value the role of the Council of Europe and we are a major contributor to the organisation. The Council of Europe’s commitment to peace, freedom and democracy is best evidenced by its swift decision to expel Russia following the brutal invasion of Ukraine and the launch of the register of damage, which will allow individuals to file claims for loss, injury and damage caused by Russia’s invasion. The 75th anniversary will be celebrated at the ministerial meeting in May.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for an equivocal Answer to my Question. We all know that he has an awesome responsibility at the moment to practise statecraft globally and to seek to explain it at home. With that in mind, when he is considering institutions such as the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe and, dare I say it, the European Court of Human Rights, would he categorise them as international and worthy of our continued commitment and support, or foreign and worthy of repudiation and occasional contempt?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I say to the noble Baroness that the Council of Europe is so much more than the European Court of Human Rights; it has over 200 conventions that make practical contributions, such as the Saint-Denis convention on safety in sport, which underpinned the UK and Ireland’s successful bid to host the 2028 European Football Championship, and the Council of Europe convention on preventing violence against women, or Istanbul convention, which helps the UK promote its gender equality priorities. We should always keep the European Court of Human Rights in proper context: since 1975, there have been 21,784 cases and only, I think, 329 judgments against the UK, so we have relatively little incoming.
But—and it is a big but—there are occasions, in my view, when the court overreaches itself. We saw one last week with respect to climate change, where it took a judgment against Switzerland. I think it is dangerous when these courts overreach themselves because, ultimately, we are going to solve climate change through political will, through legislation in this House and the other place, by the actions we take as politicians and by the arguments that we put to the electorate, so I think there is a danger of overreach. But the Council of Europe overall is a good thing.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the recent European Court of Human Rights judgment on climate change. Did he have a chance to look at Tim Eicke KC’s dissenting judgment, where he said it was extraneous and went beyond its judicial remit? Further to the Foreign Secretary’s reply to the Question, what sort of reform did he have in mind, and what changes can be made to improve the court?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I did look at the dissenting judgment, and I thought it was pretty frank and clear. We have made reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, battled very hard in the coalition Government to achieve the Brighton Declaration, which was an improvement, and we have made some changes recently on Article 39, so there are changes you can make. But I think it will depend partly on the court’s attitude to how far it takes its mission beyond the actual convention rights. I am not an expert on the convention, but I do not think that it mentions climate change and, as I said, climate change or the rights that we have in terms of our health service or education are things that we should be legislating for in Parliament, by politicians accountable to their electorates, rather than depending on a court. So reform is necessary and reform is going through, but I think there also needs to be a balance about leaving to nation states those things that they should be deciding themselves.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, one of the significant committees in the Council of Europe is the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the committee raised concerns last year about UK immigration policy regarding the detention of vulnerable people who are seeking  asylum, no matter how they get to the UK. The Foreign Secretary’s signature is on the Rwanda treaty, which, enabled by the Rwanda Bill, will mean that a trafficked woman who ends up in the UK against her knowledge and against her will through an irregular route will now be detained and sent to Rwanda under his policy. As the committee said, that is a reversal of the commitments given by the Prime Minister in 2016
“to introduce a clear presumption against detention of vulnerable people”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, on the 75th anniversary of the Council of Europe, we should be strengthening our support for vulnerable trafficked people coming to the UK rather than reneging on the commitments given?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: What we should be doing is dealing with the problem of very visible illegal migration, which is a problem not just in this country but all over the world. To do that, every country has to come up with an answer on what it is going to do. As I have explained at this Dispatch Box before, it is not possible to do immediate returns to France—that is not something that is currently negotiable —and that is why we have the Rwanda judgment. I have been looking at this issue for well over a decade, and I remember the Chahal case back in the 1990s, where the court determined that you could not balance +the risk to Britain of a dangerous terrorist staying and the risk to that dangerous terrorist if they were deported; there was no balance, as the right was absolute. You can argue that that is a good thing or a bad thing, but my argument would be that that is the sort of thing that we need to debate and decide in Parliament rather than simply rely on a court.

Lord Grocott: On the issue of international organisations, has the Foreign Secretary had time to reflect on the comments of Liz Truss, who said that she would like to see the United Nations abolished because she claimed that she does not see a purpose for the organisation. Has he any message for those of us who cannot see a purpose for Liz Truss?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: I take the view that the United Nations has many problems and issues. The frustrations of dealing with the Security Council at the moment, when there is a Russian veto and a Chinese veto, are very great. None the less, it is important that we have an international body where issues can be discussed and countries can come together. Good work is done through the United Nations in spite of the frustration, so I can see the point of the United Nations.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, the Council of Europe has at its heart the enforcement of human rights, yet to some of us the human rights situation in Europe is sliding backwards, whether it is in Poland, Hungary, Greece, Germany, Spain or Portugal, which are all lurching to the right. One of the worst is Poland. The Council of Europe is a place where Britain and Poland share a forum. Poland is in breach, and has been for decades, of its moral and legal duty  to make restitution of property stolen from victims of the Second World War, not to mention its clampdown on the judiciary, the freedom of the press and women’s rights. Will the Foreign Secretary use the Council of Europe to take Poland to task?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: My interpretation of recent political movements in Poland is that it has rather moved back to the centre, having elected Donald Tusk and my counterpart, Radek Sikorski. I will look specifically at the point about restitution, because I am not aware of that, but I make the broader point that one of the reasons why some of these more fringe parties are doing well in Europe—look at the Portuguese elections, for instance—is because mainstream politicians have not done enough to demonstrate that immigration is under control, that illegal immigration is cracked down on, and that migration policies are designed in and by parliaments for the specific benefits of the countries. Where you see that happen in Australia or Canada, which have higher rates of migration than we do but it is so clear that the policies are designed by those countries and for those countries, they seem to have less of a problem with extremist parties than many countries in Europe.

Lord Clarke of Nottingham: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the only country on the entire continent that has always rejected membership of the Council of Europe and refused to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is Belarus, which is a cruel dictatorship with no regard for human rights at all. Russia has been expelled. My noble friend was a little evasive on the present position of the court. Reform is undoubtedly one thing, which can be collectively agreed on by all the members of the Council of Europe, but can he not just give a simple, categorical assurance on the part of the present Government that they will not at any stage contemplate rejecting membership of the Council of Europe or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which is a most important international institution, particularly for the reasons given by the previous questioner?

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: Let me be clear: the Government see no inconsistency between their policies and our membership of the Council of Europe. We do not have any plans to act in the way that my noble friend says. The point I am making— I am being very frank and open with your Lordships’ House—is that there are moments of extreme frustration. My noble friend will remember serving in government with me when the European Court of Human Rights ruled repeatedly that we had to give prisoners the vote. There is nothing in the European convention that says anything about giving prisoners the vote. To me, that is a decision for democratic parliaments. You can decide that everybody has the vote irrespective of what crime they have committed, but that is not my position. I think that if you commit a crime, you go to prison and lose your right to vote. That is a perfectly reasonable, democratic and, dare I say, almost liberal position that you should be entitled to hold, so when the court told us that we could not hold that opinion we disagreed with vigour. The point I am making is  that these organisations are important and do good work, but if they overreach they plant the seeds of their own destruction.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
 - Commons Amendments and Reasons

Motion A

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Moved by Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
1C: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I will also speak to Motions A1, C and C1. Motion A1 relates to Lords Amendment 1D, which seeks to ensure that the eventual Act has due regard for international law, the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
As set out on many occasions during the passage of this Bill, the Government take their responsibilities and international obligations seriously. It was said in the other place that they take them “incredibly” seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations. Relocating migrants to safe third countries to process their asylum claims is, in principle, compliant with the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, as confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. It is a model that other countries are also exploring. Furthermore, the Bill is predicated on both Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of a treaty which itself is underpinned by wider international legal obligations by which the United Kingdom and Rwanda are bound.
As the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration set out in the other place yesterday, we must bring to an end the dangerous, unnecessary and illegal methods that are being deployed to enter the UK. We must break the people smugglers’ business model. We must stop the exploitation of vulnerable people. We must protect our borders. Most importantly, we must save lives at sea. Our systems are being overwhelmed and our resources stretched.
We need to be ambitious in how we tackle this issue, and our partnership with Rwanda provides an opportunity for just such ambition. This Bill provides the legislative means through which we can pursue this policy, while having due regard to our domestic and international legal position. However innovative our partnership with Rwanda, as I reminded the House during our last debate, this is not the first time legislation has been  used to determine that a country is safe. The Government are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country, and we have published detailed evidence that substantiates this assessment. This is a central feature of the Bill, and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic courts.
The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal, while maintaining the principle of access to the courts where an individual may be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm. This balance creates the strong deterrent that is needed to prevent perilous and unnecessary journeys, while also ensuring that we have due regard for domestic and international laws.
Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Government are satisfied that removals to Rwanda will be implemented with due regard to international and domestic law. It is therefore not necessary to set this out in the Bill. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the UK and Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. Article 10 of the treaty in particular sets out the assurances for the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda, including abiding by the refugee convention in relation to those seeking asylum. The enhanced monitoring committee will be in place to monitor robustly adherence to these obligations.
Lords Amendment 6D runs counter to the core purpose of the Bill and would eliminate its key provision. The Bill’s purpose is to invite Parliament to agree with the assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and that Rwanda can be deemed a safe country, and to enact the measures in the Bill accordingly. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if it be Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.
Rwanda is a signatory to key international agreements protecting the rights of refugees and those in need of international protection, including the United Nations convention against torture, the refugee convention and other core UN human rights conventions. Rwanda’s obligations under these international agreements are embedded in its domestic legal provisions. The Rwandan constitution ensures that international agreements that Rwanda has ratified become domestic law in Rwanda. Article 28 of the Rwandan constitution recognises the right of refugees to seek asylum in Rwanda.
In light of this, from the evidence we have provided and the commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda in the internationally binding treaty we have signed, our assessment is that Rwanda is generally a safe country that respects the rule of law. Our view of Rwanda’s safety has been further reinforced by the progress being made on the treaty’s readiness for implementation. To make it clear, we will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under the treaty.
On Thursday 21 March, after our last debate on 20 March, the Rwandan Senate passed its legislation ratifying the treaty. Domestic legislation to implement  the new asylum system has been approved by its Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system, in particular decision-making and associated appeals processes. A complaints process has been set up and will continue to be developed as we progress with the partnership. This, plus the wider assurances around trading and process that we have been given, will ensure quality of decision-making and build capability in the Government of Rwanda’s asylum system. All this simply reinforces our confidence in Rwanda’s commitment to delivering this partnership and its status as a safe country.
The treaty will ensure that those relocated will be safe and fully supported, and that they will not be removed to another country other than, in very limited circumstances, the UK. They will have their asylum claims processed fairly, with access to free legal representation at all stages of the asylum process. Those who are not granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will get equivalent treatment and will be granted permanent residence. Therefore, it is right to ensure that relocations to Rwanda are not frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges on its general safety, and that the Bill’s provisions limit challenges on the basis that Rwanda is generally not a safe country or that there is a risk of individuals being removed from Rwanda to their country of origin or to another country, in contravention of Rwanda’s obligations under international law, including—

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I think the noble and learned Lord is talking about Article 10(3) of the treaty. He will know what I am going to ask, because this is the fourth time I have asked it. Article 10(3) commits the parties—us and Rwanda—to
“cooperate to agree an effective system for ensuring”
no refoulement. That system clearly did not exist when the treaty was signed. The signatories of the treaty, rightly, in my view, thought it necessary to create such a system. Has that system been created now and when will we see it here?

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: As I said, the point is that the treaty will not be ratified until such time as that protection is in place.
It is right to ensure that relocations are not frustrated as a result of general systemic challenges based on the general safety of Rwanda. The Bill’s provisions therefore limit challenges on the basis that Rwanda is not generally a safe country, or that there is the prospect of the refoulement to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago.
We are satisfied that the Bill, in Clause 4, explicitly protects access to justice by ensuring that courts can continue to consider the safety of Rwanda for an individual where there is
“compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances”,
except where the individual circumstances claim relates to refoulement. This underpins the principle that no one should be put in a position where they would face a real risk of harm and is in line with the United  Kingdom’s international legal obligations, including under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I therefore cannot accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Lord Coaker: Moved by Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1D in lieu—
1D: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert “while having due regard for—(a) international law, and(b) the following Acts—(i) the Children Act 1989;(ii) the Human Rights Act 1998;(iii) the Modern Slavery Act 2015.””

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I was interested to listen to the Minister’s remarks, and I thank him for the introduction, but let me say why we think that the amendment that I have put forward to your Lordships now is still so necessary.
The Minister just asserts that domestic law will be obeyed, along with international conventions and laws. The last time this was before your Lordships’ House, we debated at great length some of these domestic and international law issues. They were dismissed in a sentence by the Minister in the other place—not by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart—with an assertion that we comply with domestic and international law. Nowhere did the Minister in the other place address the fact—I go back to a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has made, at great length—that the Bill explicitly lays out that international law can be disapplied. It states that, when an Act, it
“is unaffected by international law”,
and then lays out all of the various treaties that can be ignored by the Government in the pursuit of their Rwanda policy—a policy that disintegrates before their eyes. Hundreds came across in small boats at the weekend, and thousands since the beginning of the year. Where is the Government’s announcement about that? When the figures go down, the Government announce it all the time; when the figures go up, there is radio silence from 10 Downing Street about whether or not the policy is working.
I say again to the Minister, in order to be reasonably brief, that it simply is not good enough for a Government to assert that domestic and international law will be applied when this Bill is passed. That is why we pushed this. We want something that persuades us that the Government take this seriously. All this amendment seeks is that there be due regard; it does not say any more than that. It is softened significantly to that extent. There is a necessity for the Government to have due regard to international law, and I have laid out some examples of the various legislative Acts that have been passed by this Parliament, of which we are all proud.
I come to international obligations. We have just had the Foreign Secretary explain at great length the importance of convention and international law, and of abiding by the things that we have signed up to.  That is why we take action with respect to the Middle East. That is why take action with respect to what we quite rightly call the illegal war in Ukraine. That is why we take action with respect to the Houthis in the Red Sea. We take action with respect to all of that because our country proudly stands up for international convention and international law. It respects those conventions; it expects other countries to respect those conventions.
That is the whole point of what I am putting before your Lordships’ House. What on earth does it do to the credibility of His Majesty’s Government when, in international conventions across the globe, they stand up and lecture other countries on the importance of adhering to international law and convention and then pass a law that explicitly states that, with respect to the Rwanda Bill, they do not have to? Where is the integrity of the Government? I want His Majesty’s Government to be able to stand up in all the citadels of the great and good, where countries of the world meet together to solve common problems. The last time I spoke, I said to the Minister that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had used the Rwanda Bill as a legitimate reason that he could send people back to Afghanistan. He used the British Government as an example of the fact that he could ignore international conventions.
What has it come to when we read about another problem that we cannot go into? The Government cannot get anybody to fly these refugees and migrants—they cannot persuade anybody. Even the RAF is refusing, though I guess if it were ordered to, it would have to. We read that AirTanker is the latest airline. We cannot find an airline to fly the migrants back—the thousands who are waiting, queueing up at the airports. I found one airline that decided, at great length, that it was not going to ruin its brand by flying migrants back to Rwanda; it decided that that was something it could not bring itself to do. What has it come to when we read that the Rwanda state airline has rejected the UK proposal to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda because it is worried about the impact it will have on its reputation? Why on earth are the British Government not taking a cue from the Rwanda state airline, in saying that this will risk the global brand that Britain proudly has across the world? The Government should take a cue from the Rwanda state airline and say that they want to conform to international law and make sure that they will not be undermined in the courts of the world. There we have it, as an example to us all.
The amendment before us is simple. It simply asks the Government to have due regard to domestic and international law—the Acts that this Parliament has passed, the international conventions we have signed, and the law of nations which prevent anarchy in our own country and across the world. How on earth has it come to this for the great Conservative Party—the party that has always said that it treasures the rule of law and will always stand up for it, and that has for generations lectured the party to which I belong on the importance of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, both internally and internationally? It is unbelievable that the Minister has just dismissed this  with a swish of the hand, as did his colleagues in the other place. Something as important as this has been just dismissed: “We’re going to do it. Don’t worry about it. There’s no need for us to explain how on earth it’s possible”. Something as important as this has just been swept away. This Motion should be agreed as one more effort to say to our Government, “Be true to the traditions on which the democracy of this country has been based for centuries, something of which we have all been proud”.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Coaker. My Motion C1 very much a dovetails with his Motion A1. With his support, I will seek to test the opinion of the House in a little while, after the debate on Motion B1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I very much hope that he will test your Lordships’ opinion as well.
Why my Motion dovetails with my noble friend’s Motion is that we cannot observe the international rule of law by defenestrating our domestic courts. This Motion seeks to restore the jurisdiction of His Majesty’s judges and their ability to give appropriate scrutiny to these most vital of human rights decisions.
The Minister was quite right earlier when he said that this is not the first time in legislative history that a country has been deemed presumptively safe for refugees and asylum seekers—but there is a world of difference, I suggest, between a country being presumptively safe and being conclusively safe for all time, with no avenue for challenging that safety, even as facts change.

Viscount Hailsham: There is another difference too. The Supreme Court, just a few months ago, held that Rwanda is not safe.

Baroness Chakrabarti: As always, I am so grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose father famously coined the phrase “elective dictatorship” in his Dimbleby lecture of 1976.
The fundamental problem with the Bill, unamended by the proposed new Clause 4, is that it allows the Executive to dictate the facts. It allows the Executive to defenestrate domestic courts—not international or, some would say, foreign courts but domestic courts—including in their ability to grant in extremis interim relief.
The amendment turns the conclusion for all time that Rwanda is safe into a rebuttable presumption based on credible evidence. It therefore incorporates the earlier work of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. It also incorporates earlier amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Cashman in including a person’s membership of a persecuted social group in the examination of whether they would be safe—not just their most particular individual circumstances but their membership of a social group, which is probably the basis for most refugee claims in the world.
As I have said, it restores that vital ability in extremis to grant interim relief. In understanding of some concerns on the Benches opposite and of the Government,  a court or tribunal under this measure, as amended, would have to have heard from the Secretary of State or taken all reasonable steps so to do, and to grant such an injunction only where the delay would be
“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case”.
This does not prevent a policy of transportation to Rwanda, no matter how much I loathe that policy in its utility, morality and expense. It is a reasonable compromise to which the other place has given no serious respect or attention and, therefore, it has given no serious respect to your Lordships’ House.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I want to extend—

A noble Lord: No.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: Yes. I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Benches opposite, because I know there are many people there who are very unhappy about this Bill. It is an absolutely vile Bill, and part of that is the fact that the Tory Government are abusing not just human rights, and not just the rule of law, but democracy itself. The fact is that they have wasted this House’s time over these weeks—many hours and many days—and then taken everything out in the other place. That is an abuse of democracy. What is the point of your Lordships’ House if it can simply be ignored by the Government?
Shame on the Government. If they think the public support this Bill, they should call a general election. I think they will be unpleasantly surprised that they do not. Let us have a general election now, please.

Lord German: My Lords, I draw attention to my interests. I am supported by the RAMP project. I looked carefully at the House of Commons Hansard report about this first amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looking for some rationale as to why the Government would not accept it. It was a single sentence, in which the Government said:
“We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; cols. 80-81.]
On the basis of that sentence, they rejected the amendment that this House passed about seeking to observe national and international law. If that sentence stands on its own, and that is the only reason why we are being asked to change our minds, what dangers, exposures or difficulties do the Government believe are in the amendment—which is even more restrictive and tightly specified than the last—that stand in the way of anything they wish to do? Why can they not simply accept it?
If the concern is the ECHR, I am sure the Government will have seen that the threshold for granting interim injunctions has been considerably raised to a level described by former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland last night as
“vanishingly small—in fact, non-existent
So why do the Government not accept the amendment? We will certainly support it.
We will also support the other amendment. That one does the job of dealing with part of the problem that people have seen with the Bill, which is that it changes the balance in our country between our judiciary and the Executive. That balance is what we are trying to maintain, even in the very limited circumstances. This does not take away from our belief on these Benches that the Bill is entirely wrong, cruel and inhumane and will not work, which is clearly demonstrated by the numbers we have seen so far. It seems to us that the Government have no rationale, and have not given one, for refusing these amendments.

Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, particularly the detail of the inclusion in it of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; it is a detail except for those who have been, or may well have been, trafficked. There are as many as 4,000 people in the national referral mechanism whose cases are currently to be determined. That is absolutely right and proper under current legislation, and that legislation should be taken into account as part of the implementation of this Bill.
The Modern Slavery Act is a world-beating piece of legislation that we disregard at our peril, yet it is being undermined in many changes to other legislation. In this case, there will be not only a negative impact on victim care but significant law enforcement issues in not paying due regard to the Act. Not identifying victims, or sending them to another country before their claim has been properly assessed, will set back our efforts to bring the perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. Victims are often the only witnesses to this crime, so perpetrators will be more likely to escape detection and conviction.
The amendment that the Government have brought forward on a report on modern slavery to be made to Parliament is a concession that I hope will make it easier for Members of both Houses to scrutinise the effects of this legislation on some of the most marginalised people in our society, but it does not go far enough. There must be a general exemption for people who are suspected or confirmed victims of modern slavery. That is the very least we should do for survivors of a terrible crime. I am grateful for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. I have no doubt that they are inspired by appropriate feelings of concern for people caught up in, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol mentioned to us a moment ago, the disgraceful practice of modern slavery.
None the less, these amendments are not necessary. In particular, in relation to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, they undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to invite Parliament to agree with its assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and to enact the measures in this Bill accordingly. Each of the measures in the Bill as originally drafted is necessary  to enable us to create a deterrent that will stop the boats. That deterrent will work only when there is an end to the cycle of spurious legal challenges that seek to do nothing more than frustrate removal and prevent us having control of who can stay in the United Kingdom.
Opening for the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, deplored a series of steps in the Bill which he said undermined domestic and international law. The measures to which the noble Lord referred are entirely consistent with the status of a sovereign Parliament. The Bill reflects that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if that be its judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised. The principle that Parliament should be able to address any determination by the courts of incompatibility, rather than having primary legislation being quashed by the court, is part of the fundamental basis of parliamentary sovereignty. The example the noble Lord put forward—a citation by a head of state or a Prime Minister in a different country—is, of course, an example of precisely that refoulement which is forbidden in terms of the treaty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, speaking to her Motion, said that the handling of the point of your Lordships’ amendment in the other place showed the other place to be guilty of a serious lack of respect to your Lordships’ House. What we could say instead is that it demonstrates that the other place identified that the noble Baroness’s amendment, however well intentioned, cuts straight to the heart of the policy that the Government have set out.
I think that addresses the points made respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord German, to whom I would say that, as we set forth in earlier stages of this Bill, there are examples across the world of where a similar approach has been successful and has now gained approval across most of the political spectrum.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham said that the Supreme Court held that Rwanda was not a safe country; that is not the case. That is not what the judgment said. In any event, the Supreme Court’s assessment was based on a situation long since superseded, as your Lordships will hear in more detail from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom later.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the Minister said that the Bill will not be brought into force until the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. The noble Lord was referring to the network of agreements required to ensure refoulement. Can the Minister describe to the House and to the country the process the Government are going to use to determine that Rwanda is a safe country? Obviously, the Minister accepts that it is not a safe country at the moment because the refoulement arrangements are not in place. Indeed, the last time we were here, he told us there was a Bill going through the Rwandan Parliament, or its equivalent, that was not yet through. So how will the Government know—because they say they are going to decide—and what is their process?

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, if I referred at an earlier stage to the Bill as opposed to the treaty, I apologise to your Lordships’ House. The treaty will not be ratified until such time and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
As to the measures to which he refers, anent their adoption by the Rwandan Government, I think I touched on that in my speech. In any event, in treating with later amendments my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom will go back in detail over the measures being carried out by Rwanda. In relation to the interaction between our state—His Majesty’s Government—and their state, again the House will hear later about the operation of the monitoring committee and the other bilateral bodies established to check on the ongoing safety of persons relocated to Rwanda.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for pressing this, but the Minister is saying that the Government are going to make a judgment. Can he tell us how they will make that judgment?

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, it will be by the implementation of these steps by the Government of Rwanda and the establishment of the very processes to which I have referred your Lordships.
It is not right or fair to allow our asylum and legal systems to be misused in the way they are being. The public rightly expect us to remove those who have entered illegally and do not have a right to be here. This Bill, which forms part of a wider programme to assess rising numbers in illegal migration, will enable us to deliver on that priority. To the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I spoke from this Dispatch Box in some detail, as did my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in relation to the interdiction of criminal operations elsewhere in the world, including the seizure of engines and equipment and the increased co-operation with the criminal authorities in France and elsewhere.
The country is entitled to expect of its Parliament that it takes urgent steps to address the problems which have concerned us during the passage of the Bill. The other place has now considered and rejected amendments similar to these on several occasions. It is time to restore the original Clause 1 to the Bill, with its clear statement of purpose. I respectfully submit that it is time to respect the clearly expressed view of the elected House by endorsing Motion A.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but it does not satisfy me. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 258, Noes 233.

Motion A1 agreed.

Motion B

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3B and 3C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3D.
3D: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, in moving Motion B I will also speak to Motions D, D1, E, F and F1. At this late stage in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, it has been made unequivocally clear, here and in the other place, that it remains the Government’s priority to stop the boats. As I have stated before, the deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. We need to take swift action now to put in place the policy that will enable relocations to Rwanda to take place, to create that deterrent and stop the boats. We have seen the deterrent effect work for Albania and we need to replicate it for everyone else.
I turn to Motion B and Amendment 3E. We have made it clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under it. Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of country situations, including Rwanda, and this will not change. The published country information notes include information from a wide range of sources, such as media outlets, local, national and international organisations, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
The treaty also sets out clearly in Article 4.1 that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further considerations.
The Government of Rwanda’s commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty has been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation. The recent steps taken were set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart in the last group. On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. A complaints process has been set up and will be further developed as we progress further into the partnership.
Motion D1 and Amendment 7D would result in the provisions of Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions on age made by a designated person or local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda, and would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, initial age decisions of immigration officers at the border. The initial decision on age is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment.
As part of this process, on arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18. This is a deliberately high threshold and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that, where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation by a local authority, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. This approach has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case BF (Eritrea) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021, UK Supreme Court 38.
We know that assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the 2023 Act, and there are obvious safeguarding risks of adults being placed within the care system. It is therefore crucial that we take steps to safeguard and swiftly identify genuine children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges to age decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. This amendment would simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.
Furthermore, this amendment would give rise to differential treatment. The amendment would result in Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions by local authorities and the National Age Assessment Board if the person is to be removed to Rwanda. That  would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country under the 2023 Act. Decisions of immigration officers and the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) would therefore not fall within Section 57 if removal is to Rwanda. In judicial reviews to these decisions suspensive appeal rights could apply, and the judicial review could be heard on a matter-of-fact basis. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.
I turn to Motion E and Amendment 9. As I have previously set out, under the internationally binding treaty the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs that an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all the necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. Safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedures on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023, which state that
“At any stage in the refugee status determination … and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate a person is vulnerable”.
The standard operating procedures set out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process.
Victims of human trafficking and human slavery will receive the necessary support that they need in Rwanda, as they would in the UK. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. To that end, the government amendment in lieu—Amendment 9C—requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of this legislation as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the treaty.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House how far the scope of the annual report will go beyond what the monitoring committee will be doing, so that both the Government and Parliament are able to scrutinise exactly what is going on?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am afraid that I do not know how far it will differ—or not, as the case may be—from the monitoring committee, so I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that subject.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. Can the Minister confirm that, before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, in the last group my noble and learned friend discussed how the Government will be made aware of whether or not treaties should be ratified and so on. That is also dealt with in considerable detail, as we have rehearsed from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, in the agreement that was published in January of this year—starting, I believe, at paragraph 101—so I will not go through it all again.
I turn to Motion F and Amendment 10D. As we have set out before, the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us, and we will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that they receive the attention that they deserve. For now, I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Lord Hope of Craighead: Moved by Lord Hope of Craighead
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3E as an amendment in lieu of Amendment 3C—
3E: Clause 1, page 2, line 31, at end insert—“(7) The Republic of Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act until the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the Objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Rwanda Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article.(8) The Republic of Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of this Act if a statement is made to Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the Rwanda Treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.””

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I asked for this amendment in lieu to be put down because I believe that Lords Amendment 3C—to which I propose Amendment 3E in lieu—raised important issues to which further thought still needs to be given by the other place. If I do not receive a satisfactory reply, it is my intention to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
My amendment as now phrased seeks to add two provisions to Clause 1. That clause states, as we know, that the Act
“gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.
In other words, it is a country from which persons who are sent there will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and, further, their claims for asylum will be determined and treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law as well. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said on an earlier group, that provision is central to the entire provisions in the Bill—it is a crucial provision on which so much else depends.
The Act will come into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force, which means that your Lordships are being asked to say, as a matter of judgment, that as from that very moment and without more, Rwanda is a safe country. I do not believe that, despite the assurances given by the Ministers, your Lordships have been told enough to enable that judgment to be made.
Moreover, as the Bill stands, the assumption seems to be that Rwanda will continue to be safe for evermore, for ever after, come what may. That is because the decision-makers referred to in Clause 2 are under an obligation to make the assumption conclusively that Rwanda is a safe country without any qualification whatever as to what may happen in the future. Surprisingly, no provision is made anywhere in the Bill for what should happen if the facts change and everyone can see that Rwanda is no longer safe.
I want to make it clear, as I did last time, that I do not for a moment question the good faith of the Government of Rwanda when they entered into the agreement which is enshrined in the treaty, nor in the carrying forward of the obligations which it contains, and I do not question their determination to do everything they can to make the treaty work as it is intended to do. That is what my amendment is about.
My first point is that before Rwanda can be judged to be a safe country the mechanisms in the treaty that provide for this must be put into practice. Ratifying a treaty is an important step, but it is not enough; it must be implemented before Rwanda can be considered to be safe. Under sustained cross-examination by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, questions have been asked repeatedly as to what is going on in Rwanda, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that “progress” is being made and that further developments are taking place. However, that is not good enough, and the assurances that we are given are in themselves not enough for us to make the judgment we are required to make.
That is why I am asking that Rwanda be not treated as a safe country until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement from the independent monitoring committee that the key mechanisms that the treaty provides for its implementation have been created. The monitoring committee exists; communications have been taking place between the Government and that committee. I cannot see that my amendment is placing any difficulty on the Government if their assurances to us are soundly based. It is very strange—I simply raise this as a question for your Lordships to consider—that I have been asking for this amendment for some time now, the Government know perfectly well what my point is, and yet we have still not had a statement from the monitoring committee that the treaty is being implemented. That raises a serious issue as to where we really stand on this crucial issue.
My second point is that surely there must be some way of dealing with the situation without resorting to primary legislation if for whatever reason Rwanda is no longer safe because the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice. Anything may happen in the future; we cannot be sure of what is going to happen three years, five years or 10 years on  from now. My amendment provides that Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of the Act if the Secretary of State, on the advice of the monitoring committee, makes a statement to Parliament to that effect. Where that will lead to is for the Government to work out if they accept my amendment. The extraordinary thing is that, without that amendment, there is no way of curing the problem without primary legislation, with all the complications that gives rise to. What I am seeking the Government to face up to is to get some mechanism in so that the matter can be dealt with without resorting to primary legislation.
When my original amendments were considered in the other place before Easter, they received support from three very experienced lawyers speaking from the Conservative Benches—Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland. They directed their remarks specifically to my second point. Sir Bob Neill said:
“Facts change, and if Parliament sets itself up as an arbiter and decider on fact, it must have a means of changing its decision if the facts change … Can we find a way forward?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 679.]
Sir Jeremy Wright said
“it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change”
and that the Government
“should give some thought to the situation of the Bill … it must be right for Parliament to retain the capacity to reconsider and if necessary revise it
Sir Robert Buckland said that
“there is force in their Lordships pursuing that point, so that we marry up the reality with what we want to achieve legally
Indeed, when my revised amendments were debated yesterday, Sir Robert Buckland said that he still commended them. I am grateful to him for understanding what I am asking for and for supporting me.
The Commons reason set out in the Marshalled List states that my amendments are not necessary, first, because the Bill comes into force when the treaty comes into force and, secondly, because it is not appropriate to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its treaty obligations because its ongoing adherence to its treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the treaty. That fails to face up to the points that I am making on both the issues that I raise. The coming-into-force of the treaty is not enough, despite its ratification. We need confirmation before Parliament that it has been implemented before Rwanda can be considered to be safe. As for the second point, as Sir Jeremy Wright said, if the facts were to change then it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently save through primary legislation. The other place needs to think again. I beg to move.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, I support Motion B1, moved by the noble and learned Lord. I support both proposed new subsections within his amendment, subsections (7) and (8), but I want to focus exclusively on subsection (8), because it addresses directly what will happen in the foreseeable circumstances that Rwanda ceases to be safe. It lives in a fragile and volatile part of the world. It does not have a long tradition of democracy. The president has been there  for an awfully long time. I do not regard that as a good sign. Therefore, there is a foreseeable risk that Rwanda will cease to be safe. As the noble and learned Lord said, this Bill not only does not address that point but requires future decision-makers to assume that it is safe when the rest of the world knows that it is unsafe. That is a nonsense. It is unjust and it is bad government. I am glad to say that there were distinguished voices on the Conservative Benches yesterday and when the matter was last debated, cited by the noble and learned Lord, who made these points.
I recall also the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when the matter was debated in this House a few weeks ago. He told your Lordships that on that very morning he had heard the Lord Chancellor, Mr Chalk, say that in the event of the monitoring committee holding that Rwanda was no longer safe, there would be a parliamentary occasion. He did not specify whether the occasion would be a social one to which we would or would not be invited, nor did he tell us about the parliamentary process. I asked my noble friend the Minister whether he would be good enough to tell us what the parliamentary occasion would be. He said that he could not tell us. Well, he has now had four weeks to find out.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for intervening, but I have not heard, either, from the Lord Chancellor as to what the parliamentary occasion would be. Can the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, help us? Has he heard what the parliamentary occasion would be?

Viscount Hailsham: No. I have been speculating on whether we will be asked to a party, to which we might or might not be invited, or whether there will be a parliamentary Statement or whether the Government will bring forward a Bill to repeal this Bill. There are a number of possibilities, but we have not been told and, so far as I am aware, the Minister has not been told either—though he could go and take advice from the Box, if he so chose, because he has officials in this Chamber who could doubtless advise him.
So we have a real problem, and it is addressed by the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. The amendment has advantages, in that it does not deny parliamentary sovereignty and it retains the accountability of the Secretary of State, but it has one disadvantage in that it is silent as to what happens if the Secretary of State makes a statement to the effect that Rwanda is not a safe country. I am not quite sure what happens in legal terms at that point, but I am certain that it is an important step forward. We would be making progress if we accepted this amendment, and if the noble and learned Lord tests the opinion of the House, I shall be supporting him.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, perhaps I might respond to the noble Viscount. The provision in proposed subsection (8) simply states that, if the Secretary of State makes such a statement to Parliament, Rwanda will not be safe for the purposes of the Bill. I think that is as far as one can go, but if there is anything wrong with it, it is up to the Government to sort it out.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. In the last round of ping-pong, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti described her amendment in lieu as an “olive branch”. Well, this amendment is more of an olive tree, such is the compromise it represents on the original amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. In the case of an age-disputed child, the amendment would require a proper Merton-compliant age assessment to be made either by the local authority or by the National Age Assessment Board before they could be removed to Rwanda. If the assessment decided that the person was an adult, they would then be removed.
In response to the previous amendment in lieu, the Minister made much of the role of the National Age Assessment Board, spelling out in detail why it should be involved in any age assessment. The present amendment takes on board what he said and includes the board as one of two possible safeguards to prevent a child erroneously being sent to Rwanda. As such, it would help to ensure that the Government’s own intention that no unaccompanied child should be removed to Rwanda is fulfilled. The Minister emphasised this, reading out the treaty’s clear statement to that effect. He stated that,
“if an age-disputed individual requires a Merton assessment, they will be relocated to Rwanda only if determined to be an adult after that Merton assessment
The problem is that, under the current provisions, it is all too likely that an age-disputed child will be sent to Rwanda without any possibility of a Merton assessment, so the age assessment board will be redundant. As it stands, the Bill allows for the decision to be made by immigration officers on the basis of a quick visual assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, acknowledged to be unreliable by the Home Office—not a high threshold, as the Minister claimed. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that
“we continually see immigration officers deciding a child is an adult on arrival and placing that child in the adult system. It is only after that age decision is challenged and a further determination is made that the child is correctly assessed to be a child”.
That is the same practice that the Minister has repeatedly said will act as a safeguard against wrongful assessment and removal.
I dealt with the other arguments put forward by the Minister at the previous stage. The key issue facing us today is whether we are prepared to ensure a genuine safeguard against a child being removed to Rwanda because of the failure to provide a proper, holistic, social work led age assessment that is as accurate as possible.
Given that it is government policy that no unaccompanied child should be removed and the further concession the amendment represents, I had hoped that the Minister might have been able to accept it. As he refuses this olive branch—or olive tree—would he at least be willing to give an assurance, on the record, that no age-disputed child will be sent to Rwanda on the basis of an initial age assessment of appearance and demeanour alone, or to accept his colleague David Simmonds MP’s urging of the Minister yesterday that the decision be made on the basis of
“a Merton-compliant age assessment that is the gold standard for determining whether a young person is an adult
or, I would add, a child? This would provide a helpful basis for the meeting that the Minister kindly agreed to on Report. It would be really helpful if we—Peers who signed the original amendments, and key stakeholders on the ground—could sit down with the Minister and officials in a less polarised and contested space to discuss how current safeguards could be strengthened by non-legislative means so as to minimise the risk of a child wrongly being sent to Rwanda or anywhere else, which is a goal we all share.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, since the Minister spoke about Motion E, I should like to respond to the government amendment. I am co-chair of the parliamentary group on modern slavery and a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. The government amendment on modern slavery or human trafficking is entirely inadequate to deal with a group of people who are victims of a crime, suffering very often serious trauma, and without control of their destiny—they arrive here without the choice to be here. They are a specific and completely different group from any other group that your Lordships have been considering. They are then sent to Rwanda or to another country.
This Government, and I praised them at the time, passed a brilliant piece of legislation: the Modern Slavery Act, which is admired across the world. It has been made, if I may say so, almost entirely without any effect by subsequent legislation. For the Government to rely on the Modern Slavery Act as the legislation that is taken account of is laughable. The idea the Government make, that the Modern Slavery Act provides a protection for those victims who are covered by the existing legislation, is equally laughable. I did not table again the amendment that I put at the first ping-pong, but I must say that I deplore the Government’s approach to victims of a heinous crime that is widespread across this country.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I will speak to Motion F1 and Amendment 10D in lieu. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to rehearse the moral case for this amendment in any detail. Frankly, if I have not persuaded the House of that on any of the previous occasions that I have spoken to a variant of this amendment, then I will not do so today. Instead, I shall focus briefly on yesterday’s proceedings in the other place and the reasoning of the Minister and others in refusing to accept it in its earlier version, Amendment 10C.
First, I must dispute any suggestion that mine, in any of its versions, is a wrecking amendment. Indeed, I argue that, far from being a wrecking amendment, it is calculated to improve this legislation in a very specific way and, in so doing, to protect our international reputation and our credibility as an ally in future conflicts while leaving the central policy entirely unchallenged—although I do not agree with the central policy or support it.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks to 13 senior military and security figures, many of whom are Members of your Lordships’ House, for their  letter in support of Amendment 10C, which was published in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday. As they said in this letter, without this amendment, the legislation we are considering will
“do grave damage to our ability to recruit local allies in future military operations”.
I will be grateful if, when he responds, the Minister explains why several noble and gallant Members of this House—former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and others with direct senior experience in national security issues—are wrong in that assessment and that his Government are right. If the Government simply feel that our future credibility as an ally is less important than other considerations, perhaps he could just say so openly.
Ours is a revising Chamber; this is what we are here to do. Given that we have already seen objective reality defined by governmental fiat in relation in Rwanda, I am less surprised than I otherwise might have been by the Government’s determination to construe Amendment 10C as in some way disruptive or hostile. It is neither. After all, as I have explained before, it affects only a small number of people who have given service to this country when we have asked it of them. This is a measured, limited and proportionate amendment, calculated to achieve justice for a relatively small number of people who have risked death and injury at our behest and in our interests.
As I have also explained before, in many cases it has been our own bureaucratic sclerosis, administrative shortcomings and wrongful refusal of the status that would have awarded visas to these very people, enabling them to escape certain death, that compelled these brave men to take irregular routes here in the first place. To then use the fact of their irregular arrival—the need for which is a consequence of our own failure—as a justification for their removal to Rwanda is not merely illogical but disgraceful and immoral.
The Government have offered two principal lines of argument in refusing to accept the principle of exempting this group from deportation. First, they have argued that the deterrent value of the Rwanda policy requires absolute consistency: there should be no statutory exemptions from deportation, however deserving. In response to Conservative Back-Bench voices outlining support for the principles underlying my amendment, the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration argued that it was unnecessary, given that the Home Secretary had discretionary powers under Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act to exempt individuals in certain circumstances.
Justifying the refusal of my amendment by arguing simultaneously that clemency may hypothetically be exercised and that the deterrent effect must be adamantine is completely incoherent. The Government have had more than a year’s notice of this and of the identity of some of the people affected by the amendment. The Times, the Independent, Sky and Lighthouse Reports have all exposed the failures of our approach to the people affected. If the Government wished to offer certainty and comfort to these people, they have had ample time so to do. What faith can we possibly be expected to repose in the Government’s possible future gratitude to these brave men, given the way in which they have been treated to date? Of course, I welcome  the relocations and assistance policy review, but why not simply accept the moral case, add this amendment to the Bill and relieve this and any future Home Secretary of the burden of exercising discretionary power by enshrining this exemption into law?
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has claimed, the Government’s new amendment on modern slavery reporting is inadequate. It undermines their own contention that this Bill must be passed unamended to preserve its deterrent effect. In making this concession, they have also—albeit tacitly—conceded the value of the scrutiny of this House. I therefore propose both to test the opinion of this House once again and to ask the other place to consider whether it is really in our moral or national interest to expose those brave men who have served with us to further uncertainty. I continue to believe—as all the time I have been advancing this amendment I have believed—that it is now the time to give them the sanctuary their bravery has earned.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, I will make one point in support of Motion F1. I yield to no one in my commitment to the democratic legitimacy of the House of Commons, but this House does have a constitutional role to play and this Bill is an example of it. We have a constitutional right and duty to make amendments to a Bill—even a bad Bill such as this Bill, which was in no manifesto—to try to improve it.
The noble Lord who just introduced his amendment referred to yesterday’s debate, from which I will read one sentence:
“My abiding concern remains for a class of people who served our country, who endured great danger in Afghanistan, who still find themselves in danger in a third country—namely Pakistan—and who may well fall foul of an entirely unintended consequence as a result of this legislation, however well intentioned it may be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 100.]
That was said by the distinguished Conservative Member Sir Robert Buckland. If we vote in support of Motion F1, we can give Members in the other place another opportunity to think again and accept this improving amendment.

Lord German: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the statement from the Minister in the other place last night that, in the first amendment we are discussing in this group, Amendment 3E, we had confused arrangements between what the treaty required and what the Bill required. However, the House is absolutely clear that the Bill and the treaty are in lockstep. They are locked together not only by Clause 1(2) but by the Minister’s claims that the Government could, through
“this internationally binding treaty, show that Rwanda is a safe country, and enable the Bill to deem Rwanda a safe country
It is quite clear that the treaty and the Bill are in lockstep. Therefore, what we do and say about the treaty is just as important, because the Bill flows from it.
This House has already made a determination on the treaty. A vote of this House said that Rwanda is not safe unless certain conditions are met. The Government have already told us that they are working towards the implementation of the issues required to make the treaty operational. However, despite sustained questioning from many Members of this House, we  have not been able to identify where those issues are, who has put them forward and at what point they will be operational.
Given that this House—Parliament is in the Bill and that is us, as well—has to declare that Rwanda is safe as a result of the treaty, clearly we must be satisfied that the treaty is operational in the way that has been described. That is why Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is so important. Among the issues that we now know have yet to be resolved are those on training, the implementation of appropriate systems and—I venture to say—what system there is for refoulement. We have heard no answers to those questions and there have been many more from other Members during discussions on the Bill.
The amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will provide Parliament, including this House, a mechanism for ensuring that these conditions are in place to ensure that Rwanda is safe. That is all the first part of this amendment states; we now need to know that the conditions, which the House has determined by its vote on the treaty, are in place so that proceedings on the treaty and Bill can move forward. I therefore encourage all Members of the House to support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Clearly, we give the other amendments great support. On the amendment—it is almost like a thorn in the side—that is required about Afghan supporters, it is amazing to me that the Government cannot find a way of giving action to it. The Government have made no concrete proposal, other than to look at this matter sometime in the future or by some form of special treatment by a Secretary of State. Surely the moral imperative here is to help those who have helped us. Letting them down will not help us in the slightest when we might have need of support in other areas of the world. I encourage people to support this amendment too.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. This has been worrying many of us for a long time, and I am one of the signatories to the letter to which he referred. There is just one additional point, which has been made before but I think is worth bearing in mind. That is what the impact would be on individuals whose support we would need on some future occasion, if they felt that they would not be treated as well as they should be, and as well as we have tended to treat those who have already taken part in helping our Armed Forces on operations.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I rise briefly to say how much I support the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with respect to slavery, and my noble friend Lady Lister’s comments with respect to children. We will also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on his amendment, should he test the opinion of the House. We think it is a very sensible amendment; it simply seeks reports saying that the things that are required to be implemented have actually been implemented. One has only to look at the International Agreements Committee report, which lists out 10 things in particular that it feels  should be implemented before you can say that Rwanda is safe. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, there has been no answer from the Government, other than some vague platitudes as to progress being made and steps being taken to ensure that these things will happen, rather than that they have happened.
Similarly, we support the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made with the second part of that amendment: to actually reflect on what happens in the future should, for whatever reason, changes happen in the environment with respect to Rwanda—political or whatever—that would require Parliament to reconsider its original decision that it was safe. We very much support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has put before us.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his amendment, and say how much we support it. The case was made in the Sunday Telegraph, as my noble friend pointed out, with 13 military and diplomatic leaders putting forward the case for exempting those who have served this country from the provisions of the Bill. This is something that we as a country should embrace without any debate or controversy at all. I say that because it is important that we support my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, but also that the size of the majority is such that the other place is forced to reconsider the bland statement it made: “Don’t worry. We’ll revisit this at the end of the deliberations we are having”. There is no certainty in what the Government are saying.
It is so important that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is in the Bill. What it requires, and what the people of this country want, is not some reconsideration of the policy in future but a certainty that those who have served with our Armed Forces, or served us in whatever circumstances, can be assured that the promises made to them are adhered to and kept.
I cannot believe that we as a country would turn our back on those who have served with us. It is unbelievable that we should be in this situation. I say to the Minister and others who may feel it important that they vote with the Government that we are talking about men and women who have served our country, stood alongside our Armed Forces and served with us to deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. How on earth can we think it appropriate that the provisions of this Bill and the treaty should apply to them? It is simply unacceptable. As such, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment gives us a way of saying to the Government: “Think again. We believe it should be on the face of the Bill”. I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend when he tests the opinion of the House.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, once again I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To restate for the record, the Government’s priority is obviously to stop the boats. Although we have made progress, more needs to be done. We need a strong deterrent; we need to operationalise this partnership with Rwanda. Only by applying this policy to everyone without myriad exceptions will the deterrent work. We are not diminishing our responsibilities to provide support to those who are vulnerable, and we have  ensured that the necessary support will be provided in Rwanda. We are sending the clearest signal that we control our borders, not the criminals who charge migrants exorbitant amounts to come here via illegal routes on unsafe small boats.
I will endeavour to deal with all the points that have been raised. I turn first to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I restate for the record that as part of the process, upon arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 —I emphasise “significantly”. This is a deliberately high threshold, and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child, pending further observation by a local authority, which will usually be in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment.
I turn to Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. As he correctly pointed out, Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of countries’ situations, including Rwanda’s, and that will not change.
One of the things we have discussed in previous debates on this subject is that there will be a real-time enhanced monitoring phase by the monitoring committee. The enhanced phase will ensure that the monitoring and reporting takes place in real time, so that the monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings, and of course identify any areas of improvement or urgently escalate issues that may place a relocated individual at risk of real harm. This enhanced phase is dealt with in paragraphs 106 to 112 of the policy statement, and I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that, of course, if the facts change, this means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty. That may very well prompt the parliamentary occasion to which he referred. I am afraid I cannot say quite what form such an occasion may take; if I have anything to do with it, it will definitely include alcohol.

Lord Deben: Will my noble friend give way on that point? My first problem with the Bill is that I am asked to say that something is safe when it is clearly not safe, and the Government have said that it is not. What I am really asked to say is that after all this has happened it will be safe, but the Government do not seem to explain to me exactly what will happen before we get to that.
I have another problem: how can I possibly vote that it will always be safe? I am not very keen on lawyers, but surely it is a very simple matter of saying that if the monitoring committee recommends to the Secretary of State that Rwanda is no longer safe, the Secretary of State can in fact change the situation as regards Rwanda. It seems very simple to me. If I had been the Minister, the first question I would have asked my civil servants is, “What happens if the situation changes?”, and my civil servants would not have left that room until they had given me an answer. How did he allow his civil servants to leave the room?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I have already stated that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there has been a change, unexpected or otherwise, in the in-country situation in Rwanda.

Viscount Hailsham: The Minister uses the phrase “not be obligated”. That just means they do not have to do it, but it does not alter the legal position.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I understand the definition of the word “obligated”.
The Bill builds on the treaty and the published evidence pack and makes it clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, and it does address the concerns of the Supreme Court. The courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton and I have dealt with exactly where Rwanda is in terms of ratification and so on. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s finding that a policy of removing individuals to safe third country where their asylum claims would be determined did not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that finding. The Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered in future which could address those concerns, and those changes are being delivered.
Turning to Motion F1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and spoken to powerfully, if I may I say so, by other noble Lords, I again reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. I will go a little further here and say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that there is no intention to turn our backs on those who have served.
Finally, I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not like the Government’s amendment in lieu, but I am afraid there is very little else that I can say on that subject.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Before my noble and learned friend sums up on his Motion, I say to the Minister that he has not answered the question about what happens if there is a change in Rwanda and it is no longer safe.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I beg to differ from the noble and learned Baroness. I appreciate that it is a difficult place to be, but I think I have answered the question. As I have said before on a number of occasions, the Government are not obligated to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Picking up immediately on the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has just made, he said that if matters change the Government would not be obligated by the treaty to remove people to Rwanda. The problem for the Minister is that Clause 2 states:
“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.
That is without any limit of time. Furthermore, the Minister might care to read the clause more carefully, because the words “decision-maker” include the Secretary of State himself, so he is obligated by the statute to assume that Rwanda is a safe country. Whatever the treaty may say, the statute binds him to do that. This is a ludicrous situation that the Government, for some strange reason, refuse to address. The situation requires being looked at again by the other place. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 266, Noes 227.

Motion B1 agreed.

Motion C

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Moved by Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.
6C: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Baroness Chakrabarti: Moved by Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 6D in lieu—
6D: Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—“Decisions in individual claims(1) Where credible evidence displaces the conclusion that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country, section 2 does not prevent—(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding (under any applicable provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts) whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which the person belongs,(b) a court or tribunal considering a review of, or an appeal against, a relevant decision to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs, or(c) a decision-maker considering whether there is a real risk that the Republic of Rwanda will remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations.(2) The court or tribunal may having heard from, or having taken all reasonable steps to hear from, the Secretary of State, grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.(3) Section 54 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is disapplied for the purposes of this Act.(4) In this section—“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict);“relevant decision” means a decision taking by the Secretary of State or an Immigration officer (under any applicable provision of, or made under, The Immigration Acts) that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question.””

Baroness Chakrabarti: I beg to move Motion C1, again, already spoken to, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 253, Noes 236.

Motion C1 agreed.

Motion D

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.
7C: Because the Commons consider that is it not appropriate to amend the age assessment provisions of existing legislation.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) not moved.
Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9C in lieu.
9C: Page 5, line 23, at end insert—“Report about victims of modern slavery or human trafficking(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) prepare and publish an annual report about the operation of this Act as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty, and(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.(2) The first report must—(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, and(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period.(3) Subsequent reports must—(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the last day of the period to which the previous report related, and(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the report relates.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.
10C: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Lord Browne of Ladyton: Moved by Lord Browne of Ladyton
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10D in lieu—
10D: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—“Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas(1) Notwithstanding the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, any earlier Immigration Acts and the other provisions of this Act, the following categories of person may not be removed to the Republic of Rwanda—(a) agents or allies who have supported His Majesty’s armed forces overseas in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;(b) persons who have been employed by or indirectly contracted to provide services to the UK Government in an exposed or meaningful manner that now affects their claim for protection;(c) the partners and dependent family members of persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above;(d) persons who were the partners or family members of persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above in a manner that now affects their claim for protection.(2) The exemption in subsection (1) above includes but is not limited to persons eligible for entry to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) and Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).(3) A person seeking to rely upon the exemption in subsection (1) above shall give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records as to allies, agents, employees, contractors and family members.(4) Failure to give reasonable notice as required under subsection (3) above, may in the absence of available records verifying the claimant’s qualification for exemption under this section, allow a court or tribunal to draw adverse inferences as to the credibility of the claimant’s case for exemption.””

Lord Browne of Ladyton: I beg to move Motion F1.
Ayes 275, Noes 218.

Motion F1 agreed.

Victims and Prisoners Bill
 - Report (1st Day)

Clause 1: Meaning of “victim”

Amendment 1

Lord Russell of Liverpool: Moved by Lord Russell of Liverpool
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “a person” and insert “any adult or child”

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, this will be a mercifully brief group and I will speak primarily to Amendment 1 in my name, which has the great virtue of complete and utter simplicity. It was an attempt to get His Majesty’s Government to recognise that children are different from adults and have different needs and requirements. I am glad to say that in the discussions we have been having, particularly between the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the Minister and his team, we have made significant progress in recognising in various places in the Bill that children have particular needs and are a particular group that needs to be thought of in a particular way. The reason behind that is simply the need to recognise children’s unique and special characteristics.
I suspect that, like many of us, one has been to meetings where different charities and others that help children have brought parliamentarians together to listen to the experience of victims. It is pretty searing to hear directly from victims who have suffered a whole variety of terrible things happening to them, but particularly searing is listening to children who have experienced this. Some of us who have been working in this area were privileged to listen to some of those children, who very bravely spoke about their experiences, some of which were truly shocking. In one instance we not only had a victim talking powerfully but immediately after that we had the victim’s mother talking about the effect that it had had on her child and her family. In this instance, it was made even more ghastly by the fact that the perpetrator of her daughter was actually one of her grandfathers. It was almost unimaginable.
The needs of children who have gone through that sort of trauma are very specific. However well intended it may be to say that we will allow children to have access to what are essentially adult services, those services may be very good at treating adults but children are definitely different. Done well with individuals, psychologists and trained people who really know how to deal with children sensitively, the outcomes can be hugely better than well-intended interventions by people who, frankly, are not qualified to do so. I am hoping to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box on not only the amendments that the Government have brought in but, more broadly, the Government’s intention to try to do everything they can for children. On that basis, I beg to move.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I tried to add my name to this amendment but in fact I was on holiday, staying with my daughter in Spain. The suggestion that I sent put me on to Amendment 2 instead of Amendment 1, but I strongly support Amendment 1.
I was for many years a family judge and President of the Family Division. I spent a great and uncomfortable part of my time hearing about the sexual abuse of children, very seldom from the children, though occasionally, but otherwise from the doctors—the paediatricians and psychiatrists—on the trauma suffered by children. Since I left being a judge, on a number of occasions I have met those adults who cannot forget, 20, 30 or 40 years later, what hit them sometime around the age of eight, 12 or 14. The trauma is shocking; it may be short, medium or, for many, long. Those who live with it are never quite the same.
We therefore have to look at what we do for children in the Bill, and this is the purpose of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has put down. I support it for those reasons, given my own experience over 35 years in different parts of being a judge, where I lived that at second hand. I have to tell the House that judges obviously do not cry in court—except one, once—but I sat in my room sometimes in floods of tears from hearing what happened to these children. I strongly support this amendment.

Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 1. The great thing about following my noble friend Lord Russell is that I need to say very little. The beauty of this is its simplicity. We have talked about this again and again, and I thank the Ministers for their hard work and the very collegiate attitude we have had. People have come to an agreement and the Government have given a lot. However, it is so beautifully simple to change “a person” to “any adult or child”. There is a lot of talk about how, if you start doing that, where do you stop? But “any adult or child” is perfect.

Lord Meston: My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. Since then, a decision of the Court of Appeal comprehensively rejected the rather eccentric argument that a child is not a person. In fact, reading that judgment, it is quite clear that there was never any doubt that a child is a person. The Oxford English Dictionary definition, which was quoted, defines a person as:
“An individual human being; a man, woman, or child”.
The purist would say that this amendment is unnecessary, but I suggest thinking about it a little more deeply, and that the arguments we have heard in support of the amendment, which makes it clear that children are individually and separately covered by the Bill, should ultimately carry the day.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, as we begin Report, from these Liberal Democrat Benches I thank the Minister and his fellow Ministers for talking to noble Lords in the short time between Committee and the commencement of Report. We understand that this has been difficult during the Easter Recess, but it has been extremely helpful to hear the Government say where they are and are not prepared to make some progress on closing the gap between themselves and others across this House on this important Bill.
This group, as has already been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords, relates to the importance of ensuring that child victims are recognised as having different needs and services available to them under the victims’ code and this Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, echoes that made in Committee specifically changing the definition of victim to “any adult or child”.
Amendment 21 and others tabled by the Minister choose a different definition:
“victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics”.
I am grateful to the Minister for that addition because, as somebody with a protected characteristic—in my case, a disability—it makes it clear that age alone does not cover some of the particular vulnerabilities faced by those with protected characteristics. In this case I am thinking of those over the age of 18 with an intellectual disability, who may need a heightened level of support under the code. However, there is a broader point that we welcome from these Benches. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, those with protected characteristics have enhanced rights in relation to crimes against them, because of their protected characteristics. We welcome that. Can the Minister explain why the government amendments are phrased the way they are and why the Government are therefore still resisting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell?

Lord Polak: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I spoke extensively on including such a provision on children in the Bill because of the information I received from children’s charities, which explained to us the importance of including it. It is vital for them in their work, and I trust what they say. The Minister has been extremely helpful in moving this forward. Having children at the forefront, as I said, is vital, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his extensive consultation with me and colleagues on my side of the House, and with many other noble Lords who have taken an active interest in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, very adequately set out his amendment. It is not a matter for me, but my understanding is that he is unlikely to push it to a vote. If he were to do so, we would not support it, as I have explained to the noble Lord. Having said that, I acknowledge that there has been wide consultation and the Government are moving their own amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendments.
I will briefly touch on the personal testimony of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her life as a family judge. I will also touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the meetings he went to with the victims, which I also attended. But I want to say something a little bit different. Of course, it was extremely upsetting, but I have to say that I was absolutely amazed by the resilience of the victims we spoke to and their keenness to help other child victims who still come forward today. I found that extremely admirable.
This is the first group, and we will be moving on to more contentious issues in subsequent groups. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for moving his amendment, and those who have spoken in support of it. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her sobering words. I also salute the courage of the children who have participated in discussions about the progress of the Bill. I say to them: you have achieved quite a lot by participating in this discussion.
As I hope to explain to the House, the Government are absolutely clear that victims who are children have particular experiences of criminality that are different from the adult experience. They have different needs from adult victims and they therefore require a different approach. That, as I hope to explain, is fully recognised.
That said, the amendment in itself is not one the Government can support, for the simple reason that children are already included as victims under Part 1 of the Bill. The Government’s view is that that is manifestly clear, as a matter of legal drafting, across the statute book. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just pointed out, “person” includes “child” and that is beyond argument. That is the customary usage across the whole statute book, and the Government are not persuaded that we need to make an exception in this case.
On the technical matter of legal drafting, as I have just emphasised, children are in a very special position when it comes to the victims’ code. That is why the current code sets out specific provisions for child victims and others who are considered vulnerable or intimidated. Those are known at the moment as enhanced rights. That is also why we have committed—and I therefore recommit the Government—to ensuring that the new victims’ code, which will go out to consultation as soon as we have Royal Assent, fully addresses the needs of child victims in particular. We shall seek views on the proposals regarding children in that public consultation.
I come to the government amendments in this group. In particular, we have listened carefully to the arguments for greater assurances as to the Government’s intentions, which is why we are proposing government Amendment 21, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will ensure that the Secretary of State must consider whether different provision is required in the code as a result of the particular needs of children, now defined as those under the age of 18, and those with protected characteristics, when the new code is prepared and during any future revisions to the code. Although this group is about children, I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about other vulnerable persons, who are also covered by Amendment 21. That is a perfectly fair point, and one that the Government have well in mind.
The Government are delighted to have worked constructively with the Children’s Commissioner to consider how the victims’ code can better reflect the distinct needs and experiences of child victims. I am pleased that the noble Baroness expressed personally to me the other day her strong support for this amendment and her personal appreciation of the Government’s work in this area.
To move on through the Bill, in addition, Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance for agencies delivering code awareness and compliance duties, which will specifically include guidance on how sensitively and effectively to gather information on children. Clause 13 states that commissioners under the duty to collaborate must consider the specific needs of children when preparing their joint needs assessments and local strategy. Clause 15 requires the same when issuing guidance on support roles. I hope noble Lords might accept that we now have, in the Bill itself and prospectively in the revised code, very full provision for children.
The word “children” is a slightly colloquial term—it can mean a number of things to different people—so, for absolute clarity, we have tabled amendments to change the references to “children” in Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to
“individuals who are under the age of 18”
to make it clear that there is a very clear legal cut-off for the special requirements of children, which is those under the age of 18. Those are Amendments 54, 63 and 74.
Finally, I add also that we have heard the concerns about young victims not always being able to engage with the code or understand the sometimes overcomplicated documents that the Government produce. On behalf of the Government, I commit to developing an accessible version of the new code—a “child-friendly” version, if I may refer to it colloquially—which we also intend to consult on post Royal Assent, as we recognise that we can do more to improve the accessibility of these provisions for children themselves.
All that said, I think I have already explained that the Government do not, for what I must confess is a somewhat technical reason, but a real reason none the less, support the proposal to change the drafting as suggested in Amendment 1. But I hope that I have sufficiently explained the supreme importance of children, and the Government’s recognition of that importance.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. What a change of atmosphere in the Chamber from the business that we had earlier on this afternoon—long may it continue. I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for the amount of time and effort that they have put into this issue. While this amendment may not be perfect in the legal sense, its sheer simplicity has helped to galvanise the debate to make it clear how important it is that children are identified clearly as a group. It has achieved its purpose in that sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about meeting those child victims and how struck he was by their resilience. The moment he said that, I reflected on it, and I asked myself why they were so resilient. In large part the reason why they were so resilient is, first, down to the individuals themselves but, secondly, due to the fact that all the victims who spoke to us had had the benefit of working with highly specialised help in the major children’s charities. That had helped them to emerge from the unspeakable traumas that they had experienced, to the extent that they could stand up in front of a group of probably slightly intimidating parliamentarians and they were able to speak clearly, without undue emotion and with great clarity and force, about their experience and how important it was for us to understand what we need to do as parliamentarians in this Bill to enable as many other victims as possible to benefit from the support that they had received. That was the key message that I got from that.
I welcome the idea of having an accessible version of the victims’ code for children. It occurs to me that probably quite a lot of adults—including those in the agencies that are tasked with trying to enforce it—could do with an accessible version of the victims’ code. A lot of evidence over the years has shown that many of those officials charged with enacting the victims’ code, when put on the spot and asked about in detail, actually do not know very much about it. An accessible version for adults might be an idea.
I thank the Minister for having been so helpful. I think that we have moved forward in the right direction. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Lord Russell of Liverpool: Moved by Lord Russell of Liverpool
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert “, including the death by homicide of a British national outside the United Kingdom”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would provide bereaved victims of homicide abroad with the same support given to victims of homicide within the UK in recognition of the distress they experience and which is exacerbated by having to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 2, I shall speak also to other amendments in the group.
Amendment 2 deals with the victims of a homicide that has taken place outside the United Kingdom. I am very glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, behind me, as this amendment was in her name in Committee and, but for a slip of the pen, she would be the person standing here speaking, rather than me. However, because we wanted to get this amendment down, it has my name on it, so she will speak in due course about this, very knowledgeably indeed.
In essence, this amendment seeks to ensure that victims of homicide outside the United Kingdom are guaranteed to receive adequate support and are provided for adequately in the victims’ code. At the moment, no single UK agency has an overarching view of the end-to-end experience of victims of homicide abroad. Families fall through the gaps between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Justice, the jurisdiction of the crime and our own police. I am aware that the Government are likely to argue that expanding the remit of the code will bring cost and place greater pressure on services, but we would suggest that the cost is relatively minimal. We are looking at between 60 and 80 cases in total per annum, and the number of cases has been going down year on year. That is less than 0.01% of the total number of victims in the UK.
There is a precedent for giving victims of crime abroad access to criminal injuries compensation. Since 2015, if a victim is killed by a terrorist, the family has a legal right to claim compensation. We can see no apparent rationale for differentiating between victims of terrorism and other victims of homicide. To those bereaved families, murder is murder.
We feel strongly that the FCDO must be included as an agency with accountability under the code. The joint memorandum between the Foreign Office, the MoJ and the police, which is currently a document that does not have legal status, must be incorporated within the code. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Three successive and very distinguished Victims’ Commissioners have all been very strongly in favour of this amendment, and remain so. I am talking about the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, who unfortunately cannot be with us today, as well as Dame Vera Baird and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If three Victims’ Commissioners, who, in total, have been arguing the case for this for the past 16 or 17 years, are still arguing for it and still feel passionately that it is something that needs to be addressed, that has a certain force. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box.
By mistake, we put down Amendment 3 and Amendment 6, which the Public Bill Office discovered this morning were identical—better late than never. I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on anti-social behaviour and trying to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are recognised as victims and provided with their own victims’ code rights. The evidence is that anti-social behaviour is quite frequently, in relative terms, trivialised by criminal justice agencies. We have had evidence from a great many different people about the devastating impact that that can have. Time and again, we also hear that victims are told that they have to put up with  it: “If you can’t take the heat, why don’t you think about moving house?” That is not an adequate way of telling a somewhat traumatised victim of anti-social behaviour that that is the best that can be done for them. Effectively, it means that they have to help themselves.
This amendment would ensure that a victim who meets the anti-social behaviour case review threshold is referred to victim support services and receives the help they need. I know the Minister is well aware of the scale of the problem and that work is being done at the moment to try to achieve a resolution, but I commend this amendment as part of the debate to try to move this forward and see whether we can get something done. Again, I look forward to his comments on this.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 8 on child criminal exploitation, as others will cover it. Creating a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation would create a degree of understanding across agencies and professions that at the moment is not clear. If you asked a variety of people what child criminal exploitation was, you would get slightly different answers. In the interests of children, we feel that that is simply wrong. We need complete clarity on what it is and how it should be dealt with, and that is not the case at the moment. There is some way to go to make this happen. I look forward to hearing the contributions of others to this debate, but for now I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way that my noble friend Lord Russell introduced these amendments. I will speak to Amendment 2, which I tabled in Committee. I am also grateful to the Minister for having arranged a meeting for me, the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, and others with officials from his department, and for the positive conversation that took place.
I remind the House that there is more than one murder a week abroad, involving different countries, languages and legal systems, and very different circumstances. The report from the All-Party Group on Deaths Abroad, Consular Services and Assistance showed that there is a lack of consistency in contact and communication with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It highlights that there are protocols but that these inconsistencies seem to override them. There are particular inconsistencies about reporting a death and methods of communication. Staff rotation in the FCDO means that people are sometimes repeating their story time and again, which results in secondary victimisation, as they are retraumatised by having to repeat the same story to different people. In some countries, legal processes are very rapid and there are huge language barriers. Sometimes people have been given a list of lawyers with no details about their ability to speak English or even their specialisation, and have found themselves referred to a legal team who do not know much about homicide. In one case I came across, they knew about conveyancing property, which was completely inappropriate.
After all that, there is a real problem with repatriation of the body, which can be very expensive. Some people have had to resort to crowdfunding because there is no assistance. The other problem that families face when  they come back to this country is that, if there have been difficulties with the body or it has been disposed of abroad somehow, they then have to prove that the death has happened and the veracity of whatever processes went on.
I am most grateful to the charity Murdered Abroad for an extensive briefing, which I will not go through because this is Report. It is very keen to work with the FCDO. It has a great deal of experience and could be involved in training and drawing up clear protocols. It could provide the resource, which would not be expensed to the FCDO; in fact, it would probably be cost-effective because it would avoid duplication of work that is going on. It could ensure good communication skills and the language and translation that need to occur. One problem with having a small team in the FCDO is that staff change and move on and collective memory, which is really important, is lost.
I am grateful to the Minister for communicating that he does not intend to accept this amendment, but I hope that in reply he will take forward that officials need clear protocols, with good education, liaison and learning from experience, rather than simply to be responding to cases as they come in from all over the world to embassies or consulates. Sometimes they come to somebody quite junior who happens to be on duty that day. The whole thing could be better streamlined and support should be given when they come back to this country.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 2 and would have liked to put my name to Amendment 8. I do not need to say much about Amendment 2 because it has been extremely well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I support everything they have said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has not yet spoken to Amendment 8, but a very good example of this, and of slavery, is children who are called “county lines”. We regularly get situations around the country of children, largely in housing estates and often from families with very little money, who become carriers of drugs. Because the cities and big towns are inundated with drugs, they carry them, for money, to small towns and villages. Only relatively recently has the National Crime Agency appreciated that these are children who are exploited and, very often, victims of modern slavery, rather than children who are committing offences and to be put before the magistrates’ court, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand very well. Of course, county lines is not the only situation in which children are exploited. This is a worthy point to make and I very much support it.

Baroness Newlove: My Lords, I thank all noble colleagues and friends around the House who have spoken about such an important area: victims murdered abroad. I also thank my noble and learned friend the Minister and his officials for meeting me and other Peers, as was highlighted, to discuss this amendment and how we might find a way forward. I am grateful to the officials who have worked with my office to see whether there is scope for compromise.
As has already been said, to lose a loved one to homicide is truly devastating, and I stand here because I know that only too well. When the death happens in the UK, the system wraps itself around you, and you are guided through what can feel like a surreal process of inquests, court hearings and meetings with the police, barristers and support workers. However, when that death happens in another country, as is the case for just 60 to 80 families a year, why is it that the experience is very different, when these are UK citizens? They are suddenly confronted with an alien legal system, a different language and logistical problems, such as finding out how to get the body returned or what is happening with the police investigation—all at a time when they are trying to support each other while grieving and not having a clue where to go next.
They will also discover that here in the UK—the country they call home, where they have lived all their life and where they pay their taxes—they are not formally recognised as a victim of crime and the victims’ code does not apply to them. They may have a family liaison officer, a coroner’s inquest and access to the national Homicide Service. If the perpetrator is repatriated, the victim’s family will be offered access to the victim contact scheme. That sounds well, but they do not fall within the victims’ code; they have no statutory entitlements.
Instead, they are reliant on discretionary support. A family liaison officer may be allocated to them, but only at the discretion of the chief constable of that force. Access to the national Homicide Service is at the discretion of the Justice Secretary. Access to financial assistance appears to be at the discretion of caseworkers. Any support that they receive from the victim contact scheme is entirely discretionary; it is not set out anywhere in law. Neither will they have a code of practice that they can refer to. The agencies that work with these victims—the police, the FCDO and the MoJ—have a memorandum of understanding, on which I worked alongside those agencies, but that document is for officials to use and is not intended for victims.
Clearly, the UK victims’ code cannot apply to a foreign jurisdiction. I recognise that, as do the victims’ families. I am calling for the discretionary support offered by UK agencies here at home to fall within the remit of the UK victims’ code. I want to see these families—whom I have sat with and listened to for many years—move from discretion to statutory entitlements, all clearly set out in a legal document with which compliance is a legal requirement. Where agencies fail to comply, there should be clear lines of accountability. As has been said, the costs of such a move are miniscule but the impact on the families would be huge. For the first time, they would be part of the British justice system, which is where they belong.
To close, I will leave your Lordships with this thought. I know that the Minister, whom I admire greatly, will tell the House that this amendment would create a precedent. However, in 2015, following the Sousse terrorist attack on UK holidaymakers on a beach in Tunisia, the Government, directed by the Prime Minister, set up a cross-government task force, of which I was a member, to co-ordinate support for the victims and their families. It achieved a great deal in a short space of time. It even established a compensation  scheme for them. It showed me that, where there is a political will, we can move mountains. Today, I am not asking noble Lords to move mountains; I am asking them to show the political will to bring these families, who find themselves in exactly the same situation as the Sousse families, in from the cold and give them the legal entitlements they rightly deserve.

Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 5 and 8, to which I have added my name. One of the things that has changed hugely over my adult lifetime is an understanding of just how lifelong traumatising events that take place in childhood are. For that reason, we need to be very clear and careful when working with children.
In the current legislation, there are the things on the statute book that refer, in different places, to child criminal exploitation, but the definitions given there are not consistent. In the previous debate, the Minister very wisely spoke about the need to have materials that are clearly understandable by children, but we need to be equally clear about when a child falls under the terms of this Bill as somebody who ought to receive support because they are a victim of child criminal exploitation. At the moment, the conflicting definitions in other bits of legislation do not give us that clearly enough. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to support the amendments, which will give us a clear definition that will help to support children. Even if just one or two children fall through the net as a result of not having a clear definition, their lives would be scarred worse than they would be otherwise—and for ever.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and have also signed Amendments 3 to 5 and 8. I will refer to Amendment 7 and then briefly cover the others.
My Amendment 7 is similar to the one I tabled in Committee. I thank the Minister for arranging for Restitute CIC, which is championing the amendment, and me to have a meeting with his officials, and for his recent letter to me. I am disappointed that the Government are not going further by producing their own amendment, but I hope that there will be recognition soon that family members who relive the experience of their loved ones, as they help them to recover, may actually be victims themselves. Many have had mental health support themselves and have had to give up work. Often, other family relationships have been fractured, and the lives of all involved have been completely and utterly changed. I am disappointed by the lack of progress and feel that this is something that will keep coming back to bother Ministers as more Bills come down the line in the criminal justice area.
We have heard some very moving contributions on Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on homicide abroad; a similar amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Committee. I also thank the Minister for his extremely helpful meeting. We really need to support this amendment because the sort of service that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, described, which was set up specifically for one particular tragedy, is absolutely vital. We heard from officials that, in theory, the arrangements are in place through co-ordinators to make sure that those  links are made. But in practice, without formal guidance for every single department that victims will come to, there are far too many holes and victims’ families are absolutely not getting the help that they need. I hope that the Minister will consider that in future.
On Amendments 5 and 8 on child criminal exploitation, I remind your Lordships’ House that Home Office data from 2023 sets out that more than 7,000 referrals relating to children have been made to the national referral mechanism, the framework for identifying potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation. That was an increase of 45% since 2011. The most common reason for referral was criminal exploitation. However, the problem is that the lack of a legal definition means that there is no effective data collection across the UK; there is a patchwork of data, which includes just the tip of the iceberg. A statutory definition of CCE is essential in ensuring a consistent understanding of and response to child criminal exploitation across the country by all agencies and sectors. Crucially, the experts think that will help to identify exploited children more quickly.
I turn now to anti-social behaviour. We have not heard yet from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but the very moving speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in Committee set out the reality of the devastating consequences of repeated and escalating anti-social behaviour. I will not repeat what has already been said today in your Lordships’ House, but we on these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I will first address Amendment 2, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I picked up from the debate on Amendment 2 the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the lack of appropriateness of existing protocols and how they have been designed for a specific situation, whereas in fact murders abroad happen in a huge variety of situations, for all the reasons that she outlined. I think what the noble Baroness was really asking the Minister was that he undertakes to encourage the Foreign Office and other affected government departments to better devise protocols to deal with these situations. I think that was the meat of the argument we heard regarding Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, which is in my name and which has also been spoken to by other signatories to it, is the anti-social behaviour amendment. I too remember the very poignant speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in Committee. Again, I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this, but there needs to be a step change on the Government’s behalf in acknowledging the cumulative effect of anti-social behaviour, both criminal and non-criminal, and how this can be cumulatively assessed to make sure that the appropriate services are utilised for the victims of anti-social behaviour.
There was a particular question which I did not get an answer to, about the use of callouts by the police of non-criminal anti-social behaviours and whether those callouts, which are recorded by the police, can be used in prosecutions to try to build a picture when assessing a particular case which is brought to court. I made the point to the Minister that this approach is used in  domestic abuse cases, as well as in family law cases, as I regularly see. I just say to the Minister that this could be used, first, to increase the likelihood of getting convictions but also to demonstrate that the country and the police are taking this behaviour very seriously, doing something and putting in specific measures to try to crack down on anti-social behaviour—and I have to say that I will seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 3 in due course.
Amendments 5 and 8 deal with child criminal exploitation; Amendment 8 is the definition of child criminal exploitation. A number of noble Lords made the point about the variability of definitions in different parts of government. The particular example I have here is that there is a working definition in the Home Office, in the Working Together guidance, a separate definition in the national referral mechanism, and there are other definitions in other parts of government. The point which a number of noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate have made is that, if there is a single definition, it will make the working response more effective. In addition, there is the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made, which is that it will make data collection more effective as well.
In a sense, we do not really know the scale of this problem. I have heard a lot of rhetoric on this, and I have used a bit of it myself over the years. However, we do not really have a sense of the scale of it. Just to go back to the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made about the victims of modern slavery and county lines and all the rest of it, in the last few years we have seen the total overwhelming of the national referral mechanism as so many of our young people are referred into that assessment mechanism before the charges are either dropped or brought to court. Certainly, my experience as a youth magistrate is that it has added to a huge delay in bringing cases to court, which is very unfortunate but nevertheless gives an indication of the scale of the problem. Again, I will be seeking the opinion of the House on Amendment 5 and the consequential Amendment 8, as I think it is something where we can make a very specific change in the Bill that will greatly enhance our understanding of the problem itself and, I hope, enhance our ability to address this problem.
In conclusion, on Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, she said that family members may well be victims themselves. I listened to what she said and I understand that the Minister will acknowledge the issue but not concede on it. However, I agree with her that this issue may well come back. I understand that it is difficult to try to quantify this, so in a sense I am sympathetic to the Minister and to the noble Baroness—but there we go. However, as far as this group is concerned, in due course I will be testing the opinion of the House.

Baroness Newlove: My Lords, apologies; I have a migraine and I think the medication has messed with my head. I meant to talk also to Amendments 3 and 6.
Although, again, I appreciate all the informal meetings and the meetings with my office, I still wish to make a point about the impact of anti-social behaviour. It is  generally accepted that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour can suffer enormous anguish and harm. Indeed, that is the rhetoric that we hear, but people really do not grasp and do not see what is underneath. I say this because I have met many victims who are unable, sadly, to live in their own home: parents who tell me their teenage children have had to leave the family home sooner than otherwise to escape distress, and grandparents who are no longer able to look after grandchildren in their own home as they fear for their well-being. This is first hand from the very people who suffer on a daily basis. The intolerable strain this behaviour can have on personal relationships, the adverse effect it can have on children’s behaviour in school, the terrible difficulties for adults coping with this stress while holding down employment—all this is due to the trauma caused by persistent anti-social behaviour.
One of the recurring messages I hear from these victims is that they feel they are going through this nightmare entirely alone. All too often, police officers, housing officers and local government officials who are dealing with their complaints fail to recognise the level of harm being caused. In many cases, these officials even fail to acknowledge that the victims are being wronged. Some police officers are all too quick to tell the victim that it must be six of one and half a dozen of the other, no doubt in an attempt to avoid investigating the complaints. Let me tell noble Lords that that statement can have a devastating effect on the victim.
Yet, as was acknowledged by the Minister and officials when we met last week, the vast majority of these victims are victims of crime. As such, under the victims’ code, they are entitled to receive support from victims’ services. Yet I know that all too often, victims are not advised of this, nor is any referral made. Why not? Because the police do not want to tackle the issue through criminal action against the perpetrators. A victim’s entitlement to support does not depend on a decision by a police officer on what action, if any, they plan to take against the perpetrators. Once the action of the perpetrator reaches the criminal threshold, the victims’ code entitlements are automatically activated.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, seeks to plug this gap. I recognise that there are many other ways in which we can achieve this objective. It is hugely reassuring that this amendment has prompted a discussion between Ministers and officials in the MoJ and the Home Office. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to these discussions and hope that the measures which he sets out today provide reassurance, not only to this House but to the many victims of anti-social behaviour across this country, who have suffered alone and are sitting in silence as we speak about this behaviour today.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the debate, where we are discussing extending the definition of “victim” and providing mechanisms for dealing with four different areas: anti-social behaviour; child criminal exploitation; victims abroad; and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crime. I thank noble Lords for their thanks and reciprocate to everyone in the House, on all sides, who has collaborated with the Government generally on trying to move this Bill forward.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, that the Government lack sympathy for the various points that have been made—quite the contrary. For various reasons, some technical, some substantive, the Government do not feel that the statutory amendments in this group are the right way to go in changing the statute, as distinct from other means of addressing the issue.
I will deal first with anti-social behaviour, and pick up some of the most moving remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has just made, The Government have listened very carefully to these concerns. The impact of persistent anti-social behaviour, and the need to deal with it, is very firmly on the Government’s radar. However, the first point to make is that which the noble Baroness has just made: almost all cases of persistent anti-social behaviour of the kind that are causing real damage are already criminal conduct. In a most moving letter to me of 4 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made exactly the same point, saying that this is already a crime, and so people are already entitled to the protection and services available under the code. The question is how we do this in practice. How do we join the dots, if I may put it like that, and overcome the widespread fallacy that because the police have not done anything one is no longer a victim? The police not having done anything does not mean that victim services should not be available. That is the practical problem that we are facing.
At the moment, the Government are not persuaded that this amendment would solve the practical problem. It has one significant disadvantage—possibly an inadvertent disadvantage—in that it would extend the code to non-criminal behaviour that falls within the context of anti-social behaviour. With cases of loud music and so forth, which really is a nuisance, such lesser kinds of anti-social behaviour would benefit from the victims’ code. In the Government’s view, that is not a good or desirable result, because it would mean extending victim services, which are already very stretched, away from the really serious problems and difficulties that victims are facing to lower levels of anti-social behaviour. That is perhaps an unintended consequence but not one that the Government particularly want to encourage via this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is too widely drawn.
To step back, rather than going down the route of this amendment the Government propose, in line with other improvements to the code in other areas, to update the anti-social guidance where necessary to ensure that, when a crime is identified, victims are informed of their entitlements under the victims’ code. The Government’s intention is to explore and consult on how best to make clear in the new victims’ code that its entitlements apply to persistent anti-social behaviour where the criminal threshold is met and that police are required to refer people to support services regardless of whether there is sufficient evidence to charge or whether they are going to pursue any particular action. If we get the code right on this point, it will help victims and service providers to recognise that failing to refer these victims to support services could be a breach of the new duty—which we will discuss in the next group—to act in accordance with the code.
On top of that, the code’s compliance mechanisms, at Clauses 6 to 11, will shine a light where non-compliance issues are found to be systemic. That will enable robust additional tools and steps to be brought to bear when agencies fall short. As we will explain in the next session, the Victims’ Commissioner will play a very central role in overseeing this new code, and be consulted on all its aspects and on ensuring that we join the dots and that this problem finally is tackled.
In addition, the Criminal Justice Bill, currently making its way through the other place, particularly in Clause 81, addresses some of the existing concerns and processes to tackle, among other things, persistent anti-social behaviour, including promoting awareness of the review process and setting out more consistently what local policing bodies have to do, so that victims can expect a more consistent service.
Rather than going down one particular way of dealing with this problem, which is the subject in the amendment, and which may have unintended and too wide consequences, the Government’s position is to tackle this through the code. We will continue, of course, to engage with the Victims’ Commissioner and seek her views on our work in this area. She is particularly well placed to help the code, the Government, the local police forces and so forth develop proper mechanisms for joining up these dots.
There are parts of the country where this is working quite well, so let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because of the way in which the assessments will be made, and because of the oversight that is envisaged in the structure of the Bill, there will be ways of bringing the less well-performing police forces and local services up to the level of those that do it properly. That will ensure that victims know how to access these services.
Let us not forget that there is a wider anti-social behaviour action plan, which goes hand in hand with this. There has been £160 million of new funding to tackle anti-social behaviour. With these various routes and approaches, and determination to tackle the area, that is the Government’s position. We respectfully suggest that it is a more positive, sensible, broadly based and effective way of doing it than this amendment, well-intentioned though it is. That is the Government’s position on anti-social behaviour.
On child criminal exploitation, the first and obvious point to make is that there is again no doubt that a child who has been criminally exploited in the way that we are discussing is already a victim under the Bill and is already covered by the definition of a victim, because they will have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct or will have seen, heard or otherwise directly experienced the effects of criminal conduct. That is made absolutely clear in, among other things, the Home Office guidance on the subject, which was published in October 2023. I should say to noble Lords that a great deal of guidance on all this area was updated at the end of last year, which may not have entirely crossed everybody’s radar. The Home Office guidance says that
“individuals who have been groomed and exploited into criminal activity have not freely chosen to be involved, cannot consent to being exploited and so should be seen as victims first and foremost”.
That is the Home Office position, and it is the Government’s position: these children are already victims. Indeed, adults who have engaged with children in these circumstances are committing offences—probably under the Serious Crime Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act or the Modern Slavery Act. So the position of child criminal exploitation is fully recognised as a real problem and children should be recognised as victims.
Beyond that, there is already extensive government guidance explaining child criminal exploitation for front-line practitioners working with children, including in Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023, published by the DfE, which is directed to schools and colleges, and Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, which is directed to local authorities and the police and was last updated in December 2023. So, again, it is the Government’s position that these amendments, although put forward entirely genuinely, do not change what is already there, as the question of what constitutes child criminal exploitation should already be firmly in the heads of those working as front-line practitioners with the detailed guidance. In the Government’s view, simply putting the proposed definition in the Bill would not be a particularly effective way to change practice or lead to more consistent identification of victims or be more responsive.
I am not at all sure that the proposed amendment would much help with collecting data. There is no separate offence of child criminal exploitation; the data is collected under the particular offences, whether that be misuse of drugs or modern slavery or whatever, rather than under a separate heading of “child criminal exploitation”, so I am not sure that, at this stage of our reflections, the data point necessarily takes one much further.

Baroness Brinton: I was trying to make the point that the noble and learned Lord has started to make: there are lots of different agencies involved, and they do not collect the same, consistent data. Something on the face of the Bill would ensure that the data was consistent and would help everybody.

Lord Bellamy: Again, that is going a little bit further than either the amendment or the Bill as it stands, because the collecting of data in this area is a very complicated task, and we know that collecting data in general is quite tricky. What I am saying is that I am not entirely convinced at the moment by the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. In all respects, the Government consider that the amendment would not really take things further. Extending the definition of a victim is unnecessary because the issue is already covered.
I should say a word about the county lines problem. A full county lines programme has been in operation now for some years. The figures I have are that we have had 16,000 arrests and 9,000 safeguarding referrals. The Government are working very hard on dealing with the county lines problem, and there is special support through the county lines programme for children involved in that. It is clearly a difficult area, but it is not that nobody is tackling it. Would the amendment take the issue forward particularly in the county lines  situation? I respectfully suggest that that is doubtful. So that is the Government’s position on child criminal exploitation.
On homicides of British nationals abroad, again the Government are entirely sympathetic to the various points that have been made. On a point of detail, since we are talking about what the victims’ code should cover, if the perpetrator of the murder is another British national, then that can be an offence triable in this country and it would trigger the application of the victims’ code. But most of these cases will be where the perpetrator is not a British national, and it seems reasonably clear that, where the offence or murder or homicide is in Ecuador or Peru or South Africa or wherever it is, large parts of the victims’ code by their nature will not be applicable. The various rights to information, the various rights about prosecution decisions and the right to make a personal statement would all, by the nature of the situation, not apply. From a quick look at the victims’ code, rights 1 to 3 and 6 to 11, for example, just would not apply. I think that leaves, essentially, right 4, which is the right to victims services. At the moment, the support available is provided by the Homicide Service, which in the United Kingdom is provided by Victim Support, a most excellent organisation, to which the Foreign Office can refer victims.
So there is already, by proxy, support for victims of homicide abroad, but I think that the complaint is that it is not sufficient. Hearing that complaint, the Government, as we develop the new victims’ code, will review the information provided for bereaved families of victims of homicide abroad so we can be clear what the entitlements of families are. The NPCC, the FCDO and the MoJ have committed to working together to explore separate guidance, to be referenced within the code, specifying the roles and responsibilities of each department and their services. That would act as a public commitment on how they will work together to support bereaved families and, I think, provide the consistent protocol—to use the words that were being used some moments ago—to assist families in this very difficult position.
Finally, in relation to the amendment regarding carers—

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In the plan he has just outlined of the three departments working together, does he envisage establishing a checklist that FCDO staff in every embassy and consulate will have that will mean they will prospectively know about interpreters and appropriate lawyers who could be pulled in, in the event of there being a homicide in that jurisdiction, so that some of the problems that have arisen to date would be avoided by each consulate and embassy being adequately prepared? Will the education behind that become mandatory guidance, so we would know that, in practice, a clear system had been set up? I would be grateful if he clarified that, because simply the three departments working together here might not influence what happens on the ground elsewhere, learning from the experience of other places.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I do not think I can, at the Dispatch Box this evening, commit the Government to proposing such a checklist in that  detail, because the details will have to be worked out. However, the Government hear what the noble Baroness says and it is an obvious matter to consider. That is as far as I can go this evening.
Finally, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will forgive me if I take the question of carers a little bit shortly. The central problem with the amendment is the extension of the code and the rather blurred boundaries that might lead to quite a lot of extra resource demands, extra entitlements and so forth, so the Government are not persuaded that we should go as far as that. However, this point is correctly raised as a social and quasi-legal issue, and I can commit that the Government are already working with the Children’s Commissioner specifically on children’s needs and looking afresh at the needs of vulnerable adults ahead of public consultation on the code. I can commit to considering the experience and needs of parents and carers as they support particular victims through the criminal justice system. As to whether that requires further provision, I can commit to carefully considering how the accompanying statutory guidance might best set out how criminal justice bodies can effectively engage with the very important group that the noble Baroness identifies, who are so key to the support of their loved one, the direct victim, but I think that is as far as I can go on this group.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for summing up so comprehensively —in fact, going over the new Report stage time limit, for which I am grateful. The issues we are talking about, in particular murder abroad, anti-social behaviour and the definition of child criminal exploitation, are long standing and not new; they come back again and again. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, in a situation such as in 2015, after the incident in Tunisia, the Government decided that they were going to do something about it, got their act together in short order and demonstrated what is possible if they really put their mind to something. In a sense, that is what we are challenging the Government to do, in separate ways, on each of these issues.
On anti-social behaviour, the Minister talked about joining the dots and getting the code right. He admitted that it is not as joined up as it should be. The problem that I think many of us have with the way the Government are responding to some of these issues is that they keep returning to saying what different agencies and individuals should be doing, but they seem very afraid to say what they must be doing. The common theme in all these areas is that we are challenging the Government. Indeed, what are a Government elected to do—albeit not by noble Lords, because we are not allowed to vote—if not to make things happen? That is really what we are looking for. In the case of anti-social behaviour, if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, decides to test the opinion of the House I would fully endorse that.
On child criminal exploitation, the updated guidance is fine. The key, as ever, is consistency, and at the moment there is a lack of consistency. The Minister said, and I am quoting, that it should be “in the heads” of front-line practitioners. The fact is that it is not in their heads in the same way for all the key  front-line practitioners. That is the complexity. The challenge for the Government is to try to get a degree of consistency in the way child criminal exploitation is understood and dealt with, which is clearly not the case at the moment, so there is more to be done.
I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay very much for what she said about homicides abroad. I take the point about what happens if the perpetrator is not a UK national but, again, if the Government really wanted to put their mind to this, I am sure they could find a way. We are talking about such a small group—60 to 80 individuals per annum. It is not beyond the wit of man, let alone a Government, to focus and try to find a way of ameliorating a situation that has been festering for years and really does need to be dealt with. We also have more to do on carers.
I reiterate that the challenge for the Government is that we are looking for guidance from them as to what must be happening, not simply what should be happening. That has been the case for the last 15 years, and what should be happening is not happening in so many areas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
3: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would include victims of long-term anti-social behaviour in the statutory definition of a victim.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 185, Noes 192.

Amendment 3 disagreed.
Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
5: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—“(e) where the person is a child who is a victim of child criminal exploitation.”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 176, Noes 197.

Amendment 5 disagreed.
Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.

  
Clause 2: The victims’ code

Amendment 9

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
9: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, after “functions” insert “of a public nature”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment clarifies that the victims’ code issued under Clause 2 is directed at persons exercising functions of a public nature relating to victims or any aspect of the criminal justice system.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, in speaking to the relevant government amendments on the victims’ code and compliance, I will summarise the ways in which the Government have strengthened the code and the framework in which the various duties under the code arise.
There are essentially seven points to make quickly. There is a new statutory duty on agencies to act in accordance with the code and a statutory duty to have a complaints procedure. The amendments set out what is now required instead of what “should” happen. There is a duty on Ministers to review the code, and to publish an annual report on compliance and lay that before Parliament. There is a power to issue non-compliance notices, a most important enforcement mechanism. There is significant strengthening of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, who is empowered to keep under review compliance with the code; has a right to be consulted on all the regulations and guidance, and the code itself; and will also be part of the ministerial task force to enforce the code and the statutory guidance under Clause 11. Those are the various amendments which I will move, but I summarise them as a package so that people can see the whole package as an important strengthening of the code. I hope we have arrived at a very considered position in relation to the status of this code.
I will go through the amendments in turn. Government Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims’ code unless there is a good reason not to. This duty does not give agencies licence in any way to ignore the code. It allows for a bit of operational discretion to cope with circumstances where the agency is, for whatever reason, short of resources or cannot quite meet the timescale or whatever, but it places that statutory duty firmly on the agencies. In addition, Amendment 31 places a duty on relevant agencies to have complaints procedures for non-compliance with their duty to provide services in accordance with the code. That is a duty that has been elevated from the code into the statute, to demonstrate that complaints must be taken seriously and victims should receive the level of service they are entitled to and deserve. Government Amendments 33, 38, 40, 42, 98 and 99 are consequential on that.
There is a short amendment, Amendment 9, that makes it clear that the victims’ code is applicable only to
“persons exercising functions of a public nature”.
That is a small tidying-up amendment and is, I hope, not controversial.
We have then done a lot of work in Amendments 10 to 12, 14 and 15 to remove the word “should” and, where relevant, replace it with the revised word “require”. This is a point that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was particularly pertinent on in Committee, and I hope we have recognised the point that was being made there and have amended the relevant clauses accordingly.
The most important amendment is Amendment 44. Ministers now have a duty to review national code compliance, to publish an annual report and, most importantly, to issue non-compliance notifications. If I may say so, this amendment does build on an amendment, in broadly the same direction, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about what procedures we should have in place for ensuring compliance of one sort or another. The amendment will require Ministers—in practice, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, although to the extent that, for example, the Ministry of Defence Police are involved, it might involve the MoD as well—to jointly review agencies’ compliance with the victims’ code and enable them to take action where agencies fall short. It also sets out the important, central role the Victims’ Commissioner will play in that process.
I think I mentioned in Committee a non-legislative commitment to establish a ministerial task force to oversee compliance with the code, and I can now say that we intend to publish the minutes of that task force. Of course, the Victims’ Commissioner will be a member of the task force and thus centrally involved.
To address unsatisfactory compliance, the amendment will provide Ministers with the power to issue and publish non-compliance notifications. That will be an extremely salutary power. It also requires Ministers to prepare and publish an annual report on code compliance and lay it before Parliament—all, of course, in consultation  with the Victims’ Commissioner, who will provide independent scrutiny before carrying out either of these actions. The fact that this comes before Parliament is, again, a powerful reinforcement of the code.
Clause 11 provides for statutory guidance, which will include details of how the national oversight system of the ministerial task force will operate, various trigger points for the non-compliance notifications and so forth. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved in that development as part of the task force. Those are fairly central amendments, and Amendments 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 are consequential on those.
Then we have Amendments 86 and 97, which again refer to the Victims’ Commissioner reviewing national compliance with the code. Government Amendment 86 goes further, updating the Victims’ Commissioner’s functions to include keeping the operation of the code under review, thus bringing that role of the commissioner clearly within the purview of the Bill. That will be discharged through the ministerial task force, as well as the commissioner’s independent actions of oversight and scrutiny. I hope that these amendments demonstrate the Government’s intention to improve the situation for victims. Government Amendment 97 is consequential on what I have just said.
Amendments 25, 28, 36, 39, 41, 43 and 56 in various respects concern the duty to consult on the code and the various code compliance regulations and guidance. They require, in particular, Ministers to consult the Victims’ Commissioner. We have listened carefully to the points made in Committee—notably by my noble friend Lady Newlove, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others—regarding the specific statutory role of the Victims’ Commissioner. We will introduce these new consultation duties to align directly with the Victims’ Commissioner’s statutory responsibilities and to formalise the independent role of scrutiny of the code that the commissioner undertakes.
Finally, there is the important element of consultation on the code. Amendments 25 and 28 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and Welsh Ministers when preparing or amending the victims’ code, to ensure that the code takes fully into account the systems operating across both England and Wales. Government Amendment 37, which is important, is the feedback amendment. It will facilitate the collection of victim feedback on code compliance by a third party in relation to criminal justice bodies, if required. That will allow Ministers effectively jointly to direct certain bodies to provide specified information to a third party for the purposes of enabling or assisting them to collect victim feedback. That is going to be an important mechanism for following how we develop these various mechanisms.
If I may, I will take this opportunity to reply to a query my office received recently from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether this interfered with data protection legislation in any way. The answer is no. Clause 26 makes it perfectly clear that all data protection is subject to data protection regulation. The code compliance duty already involves the collection of information and sharing it between bodies. Victim feedback is a vital part of this and is going to provide  very important insight into the experiences of victims. This amendment will give us flexibility on how that is collected, and the compliance framework.
There are also one or two minor technical amendments to Clause 20 that I need not dwell on. They make a minor drafting change, updating statutory practice relating to provisions for different purposes, which is a technical point. However, overall, I hope the House will accept that in tabling these amendments the Government have gone a very long way to improving the force, standing and legal status of the code and, in particular, of the Victims’ Commissioner. I beg to move.

Baroness Gohir: My Lords, I have proposed Amendment 16 to ensure that all victims have the same right to have a CPS or police decision reviewed. At present, the criminal justice system does not allow the same right for all victims. This anomaly, which the Government seem to want to retain, has arisen because of the inherited EU legislation that we have adopted. It could be put right if my amendment is accepted. We have discussed amendments on how to strengthen the Bill in relation to victims of anti-social behaviour and child sexual exploitation. This amendment seeks to help those types of victims and victims of other horrific crimes such as gang rapes—in other words, crimes committed by multiple perpetrators.
At present, a review can be requested only if there are no perpetrators. In cases where some perpetrators are charged, or even one perpetrator is charged, and others are not, a victim cannot then go and ask why the other perpetrators are not being charged. It is not about opening up new cases; it is about reviewing the decisions that have been made. We know that the police and CPS make mistakes. There have been cases where there have been no charges at all and, when a review has taken place, charges have been brought forward.
One argument used against the amendment is that it could delay justice for the perpetrators who have been charged; but surely, at that point, it could be explained to the victim that, if they go for review, it may delay the process. At least the victim can then make an informed choice. They may decide that, actually, they do not want to have a review.
Including the amendment in the Bill would not only help victims to have the same right to review but would make sure that the police and CPS were not cutting corners. At present, the system works in favour of the CPS and the police rather than the victims. In cases where there are multiple perpetrators, they can choose to charge some perpetrators or just one, fully knowing that their decision cannot be challenged. That is exactly what happened in a case on the helpline of the charity that I run: the Muslim Women’s Network, in which I declare my interest as the CEO. In that case, where a woman was gang-raped, only one person was charged; the other perpetrators were not. She was shocked, and she tried to get a review, but was unable to get one. That resulted in more trauma and the case was then dropped.
Charging one person involves far less work than charging several perpetrators. I am not suggesting that police are cutting corners in every case, but it is plausible to suggest that this may, and does, happen some of the time.
We know also that racism exists in the criminal justice system, and there is plenty of data showing that minority-ethnic victims are treated less favourably in the system. The loophole that currently exists in the right to review could lead to further inequalities. The amendment would therefore also help to reduce the misuse of police and CPS power.
I thank the Minister for meeting me online last week and discussing this in more detail. I know that he understands the concerns. One suggestion has been that, in exceptional circumstances, in the cases that I have described, there could be a right to review, but, unless that is written down somewhere, it simply will not happen. If it can be included in the code of practice, the term “exceptional circumstances” will need to be defined. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to change his mind and accept my amendment.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, I will speak briefly on several amendments. On Amendment 16, on which the noble Baroness has just spoken, it is hard in principle to disagree with her. Clearly there is an anomaly here that needs to be dealt with. The way that it is working at the moment is inconsistent and not as clear as it could be. I do not think I need to say any more than that. I echo her wish that the Minister and the Bill team will reflect on this and find a way of clarifying the situation and improving the lot of those victims. One can hardly imagine what it must be like to be a victim of the type that the noble Baroness described and to find that, having been violated by a whole series of perpetrators, they have absolutely no idea why one is singled out and the others are left out. I entirely endorse and support that amendment.
On Amendments 46 and 47, about publishing code compliance, we have made—I thank the Minister for this—significant progress in this area, so I do not need to talk any further about that.
I will speak a little bit about Amendment 58, on training, which is in my name with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Clause 6 of the Bill says that criminal justice bodies must
“take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code”
to victims, but what it fails to mandate is that professionals within those bodies receive any form of training. In our view, the Bill should ensure that all organisations that come within the victims’ code not only understand it but are capable of delivering the rights that the victims’ code embodies.
There is a clear evidence base for training and a widespread lack of awareness of victims’ rights. In Committee, the Minister said:
“The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training”,
but he also said:
“The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation”.—[Official Report, 5/2/24; cols. 1467-68.]
I understand that point of view but I am not sure I entirely agree with it.
I would look at some evidence and input that has come this week from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner herself. The Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance contains the following:
“Public agencies should invest in awareness raising, specialist training and systems change within their services to ensure that victims receive effective and safe responses and that information about their services reach the range of different communities and protected groups in their areas”.
Nicole Jacobs says that the guidance, despite that clear stricture, is inconsistently interpreted, applied and delivered. She is very much of the view that training needs to be in legislation, not in accompanying guidance, as the guidance on the Domestic Abuse Act has led to a very disparate picture across the country. Some agencies in areas that recognise the importance of this have implemented good training and awareness raising, but other areas have simply not done anything because, as she summarises their feedback, “It’s just guidance so we don’t actually have to do it”. That very current evidence from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner about the importance of training, showing that it should be mandated in a way that means it is delivered effectively and consistently, is a very strong case, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to it.
I agree entirely with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in principle and in spirit. I am not sure the Government will accede to it, but I hope there will be a cumulative force of arguing for the code being much better understood and to have much more substance and muscle than it has been demonstrated to have over the many years that it has been in place. It needs to be improved.

Baroness Newlove: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for all the conversations and meetings we have had with his officials and other Peers. In Committee I expressed my concerns about provisions in the Bill, so I am speaking in support of Amendments 46 and 47 but, having listened to the Minister, I am delighted that we have resolved this issue.
The provisions in the Bill relating to delivering code compliance are important because they must be strong enough to give effect to the level of change that we require. I have always maintained that the success of this Bill will depend on whether future victims receive their code entitlements. I am delighted that the Government have listened to our concerns and reviewed their proposals. The government amendments tabled last week are an important step in the right direction. Statutory non-compliance notices, coupled with statutory changes to ensure that future Victims’ Commissioners are able to provide rigorous scrutiny of compliance data, are important and I welcome them.
Naturally, I want to see the Government go further. It is important that details on how the Government’s compliance regime will operate are set out clearly in statutory guidance. I also want to see trigger points for non-compliance enforcement to be set out clearly. I am delighted that there will be transparency as the minutes of the task force meeting will be made public.
Of course, setting out a compliance regime is one thing but making it happen is another. I do not underestimate the challenges in building a dataset that provides us with a comprehensive understanding of exactly what is happening and what is not. Importantly, we also need to understand how well services and  entitlements are being delivered. While these provisions are a step in the right direction, we still have a long way to go before we can say that all victims are getting the support they deserve.
We must not confine ourselves to compliance monitoring. We need to tackle the culture of our criminal justice system when it comes to victims. Earlier the Minister referred to training, which certainly has an important part to play, but we need to go further to understand why the victims’ code is of secondary importance in the eyes of so many practitioners.
Defendants have statutory rights; victims do not. The victims’ code was described to me by a government lawyer as “persuasive guidance”, but at times I, along with many victims, would question just how persuasive it actually is. I make no secret of the fact that I would like to see victims’ rights elevated to statutory rights as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in Amendment 23. I also support Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. It is important that every victim has a right to review when there are multiple defendants in the dock. As somebody who has personally experienced that, it is so important for the victim to have that individual right to make sure they get answers and an understanding of what is going on.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, it is pretty much an understatement to say that it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She and my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon are very special Members of your Lordships’ House, if I may say so, for their extraordinary superpower and ability to turn experiences that no one should have to endure into a subsequent lifetime of public service, for which I think we are all very grateful.
I will take my lead from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I do not think it is a secret that my many amendments in this group were tabled with her blessing and that of the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. I am also grateful to a number of victims’ groups and NGOs for their support of these amendments.
This is Report, not Committee, and we have had a long day, so I do not want to trouble noble Lords for too long, but I am grateful to the Minister and his team. Petty France may have shown Marsham Street that it is possible to engage just a little—half a loaf is better than no bread. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and I are going to disagree about the extent to which government amendments to this part of the Bill are a huge step in the right direction, but they are a step. I thank him and his team, including those who are not in your Lordships’ Chamber. This is the way, perhaps, that we ought to try to do legislation.
The motive behind my many amendments was to try to put victims’ rights on a proper statutory footing and to make them equivalent to suspects’ and defendants’ rights. Divide and rule is a really bad thing, and for decades Governments of both persuasions have sometimes been able to be in an arms race where victims’ rights are set against defendants’ rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, put it so eloquently yesterday at Questions, if you treat a suspect badly and delay justice, that is  justice denied. The same is true for victims, and for some years now we have told victims that they have rights and a code, but those rights have been totally unenforceable and that is not fair. That false expectation has caused enormous trauma and concern.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for moving things on just a little, but I hope that a future Government of any persuasion will go further still. I hope I am not dishonouring the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and letting her down in saying that. I can say thank you for what has been achieved but still be more ambitious for change.
The justice department has, I think, had the biggest cuts of any department in recent years. To deliver rights for victims takes resources and investment. Sometimes with suspects’ and defendants’ rights, you can deliver something by holding back, but when it is victims’ rights you really need to invest in the different entrances—in the staff of any criminal justice agency who will be there and so on. I am so grateful and do not want to seem churlish, because this is something, but I hope that it is the building block for further reforms so that we can have a level playing field.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that suspects’ rights came from a Conservative piece of human rights legislation: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Given that both parties often compete for the law and order agenda—forgive me, I should say all parties—it seems odd to me, as a human rights campaigner of many years, that we would entrench and codify suspects’ and defendants’ rights in a way that we have yet to do for victims.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I start by referring to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I will not repeat the points she made but she emailed me just prior to us starting this evening’s debates on Report. I am interested that she notes that this is a loophole caused by us exiting the EU. I have immense sympathy with the amendment. If it is a clear anomaly caused by us exiting the EU, I remember considerable debate on the retained EU law Bill about what to do when things were discovered. Ministers said on more than one occasion that in the EU withdrawal Act there is something called the correcting power, and that that can be used to correct any anomalies, providing they are not the Government’s whim because they have changed their policy on something. I do not know the detail because I have not seen where the loophole has come from, but it seems to me, on the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has described, that if this is caused by our leaving the EU then there is a remedy of legislation. Perhaps the Ministry of Justice will take that away and look at it, and the Minister will write. It can be done quite simply in most cases by regulation, which is why the retained EU law Bill took such a long time to wind its way through Parliament—I worked on a lot of those amendments. It seems that if the Minister has sympathy with this, there is an easy remedy.
My own Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that each criminal justice body makes arrangements to provide adequate training regarding violence against women and girls for all personnel supporting them. The hour is late, so I will not say very much, other than that  there is already a substantial amount of training in other areas but the guidance on what that training should be and how it should happen is not the same. The Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance is clear, and at paragraph 225 provides that:
“Public agencies should invest in awareness raising, specialist training and systems … to ensure that victims receive effective and safe responses”.
Unfortunately, that is not the same in the code of practice; it is not as strong. My Amendment 34 attempts to strengthen that.
I am mindful of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I know that he has spoken, but his amendment is slightly broader than mine and, if he chooses to divide the House on it next week when we return, I think our Benches will be happy to support him.
I end by reflecting on the debate we have had on the Minister’s amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It seems to have been the prime debate that we have had since the start of this victims Bill about its function and practice. I echo the thanks from all around the House for the steps that the Government have taken to strengthen it. I am still with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is not quite there, but I will take any change at all.
I am mindful that, when we first managed to introduce a specific stalking law with a maximum sentence of five years just over a decade ago, two subsequent pieces of legislation have been added since to strengthen it. That has helped and enhanced it. I hope that these government amendments are the beginning of a journey. I believe that practice will show that there needs to be further strengthening. In the meantime, I am very grateful to the Government for taking these steps forward.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, there is great consensus across the House to say thank you to the Minister and his team for the steps that have taken us forward. I went through all these amendments to look at what they contained. They reminded me of the debates that we had in Committee about the things we wanted to see strengthened in the Bill. We should be pleased that we have made such progress. The Minister has done a great service to the victims’ code and compliance. I am also with my noble friend, in that it is a good start but we would like to go further. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, echoed that.
We would be very pleased on these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, in her amendment. I have been in the House for 26 years and have been in a similar position as a Back-Bencher on something I really cared about and thought should happen. It is possible that we may have a solution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and that would be great, but there is always another Bill coming down the track. I can say from these Benches with some certainty that, if there is another Bill coming down the track and the noble Baroness goes for it again, we will support her. It sometimes takes a little while but, quite often, if you have an issue that you care about—I think this is a really important issue—you will get there. But perhaps the Minister will say yes to the noble Baroness —let us hope so.
The second issue is in the amendments about training, both of which are very important. We will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his amendment at the appropriate time, when it is dealt with. This is a very good example of how the House works best when we continue to talk to each other about all the things that we want to see happen. It is amazing how often you start a Bill and the Government Benches and the Bill team think that the Bill they have is perfect—of course they do—and should not be changed, but the iterative process of discussion and debate we go through in this House does improve legislation. This is a good example of that.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the sincerity with which their various points have been made. I will briefly reply to the amendments not proposed by the Government. Unfortunately, while understanding all the points that have been made, the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments as they are. Although noble Lords have been kind enough to say that this is good progress and to express their thanks, I make it absolutely clear that I work with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, and he is the boss, and my right honourable friend Minister Argar was responsible for this Bill in the other place. Although it is very kind of noble Lords to make compliments to me, they should please bear in mind that I am part of a wider team, supported by an excellent staff.
We are not in competition with Marsham Street—or at least, we do not see it that way—but under the present Lord Chancellor, progress on this Bill has reflected the current ethos of the Ministry of Justice. I fully welcome and support the plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for more financial resources for the Ministry of Justice; that would be wonderful. But we work with what we have and, of course, some of those constraints have provoked the Government’s inability to go quite as far as others would like.
Amendments 23 and 122, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would place the victims’ code in a schedule to the Bill and make related changes. I hope I have reassured her on our strengthened approach, and that compliance with the code is not optional. It may have been seen as optional in the past, but this is quite a change. As an alternative to Amendment 32, which would promote enforcement through the courts, we have a different non-compliance notification process which I hope will be equally effective. We are very reluctant as a Government to go down a court-based route because that can take up more resources and be less effective and more counter-productive than other routes.
We are very much in favour of the other routes that we have developed, I hope comprehensively, in the Bill, including the need to have clear compliance procedures, bolstering the accountability framework to make sure that there is appropriate recourse and, in particular, relying heavily on the independent scrutiny of the Victims’ Commissioner. So those various mechanisms collectively should give us a good framework; let us give them a good try and see, as noble Lords have suggested. At some point we may need to go further, but this is a good start, is it not? That question is rhetorical, so noble Lords do not have to answer.
Amendments 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 concern consulting the Victims’ Commissioner. We have effectively covered the same ground in the Government’s amendments, and I do not think I need say any more about that. We have not gone down the route of putting all this through the affirmative procedure. I am not entirely persuaded that the affirmative procedure is as good as it might be, in that you can only say yes or no, et cetera. But the procedures we have for bringing the code into force, reviewing it, issuing it and consulting on it are all good and should work quite well. I hope that, in the light of that, there is no need to pursue those amendments.
Similarly, Amendments 55, 68 and 69—the latter being one of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—concern consulting various commissioners and “by and for” services on the duty to collaborate. I am very grateful to all the commissioners who have collaborated with us on developing these measures. We will publish draft guidance on this part of the Bill, but the Government’s position is that the overall framework we have for consultation and publishing guidance is already sufficient and appropriate.
Of course, the department will continue to engage with all national commissioners. I am particularly grateful for the support of the Victims’ Commissioner. I mentioned earlier the Children’s Commissioner, and I work very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They are all making a very significant contribution to a better system. Of course, we will continue to engage with a whole range of providers, including the “by and for” organisations. It is very much in the Government’s interests to consult and engage as widely as possible, so there is no reason not to.
Amendments 46 and 47 would require code compliance data to be shared with the Victims’ Commissioner. We have put forward a number of amendments to make the central role of the Victims’ Commissioner clear. I hope these are sufficient to place the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart and centre of the system, remembering that they already have existing and separate powers to issue reports and recommendations, and, under this Bill, the agencies have to respond to them.
This brings me to the important subject of code training in Amendments 34 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He is rightly concerned about this and has emphasised it throughout. I do not at all hide behind this fact, but if you believe in devolution—and we have 43 different police forces, different local authorities and 43 police and crime commissioners—you have to accept a certain degree of difference in the way those authorities operate. That is inherent in any devolved system. None the less, it is of fundamental importance that front-line staff are adequately trained to support victims of all crimes. That is why I can and do commit to using the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 11 to set a clear expectation that agencies should have adequate training on the code so that staff know what the code is, can inform victims of their entitlements under it and do their job in a way that complies with it.
The Government are of the view that legislation is not the right place for such matters, given the level of operational detail required and the diverse requirements  of the various organisations delivering the code. However, we appreciate that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that training not only exists but is effective. I believe we can achieve the right balance by committing to prescribing in the regulations that bodies must collect and share information on the training they have in place to ensure that the code is delivered effectively as part of the delivery assessments within the compliance framework.

Lord Russell of Liverpool: The Minister mentioned that he works very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Given what I said about her experience that, for training, the statutory guidance which is part of the Domestic Abuse Act is very inconsistent, despite being statutory guidance, will he undertake to go back to her and explore in more detail what she has experienced since the Act was passed and see whether any lessons can be learned that can be applied immediately to this Bill?

Lord Bellamy: I am quite happy to accept the noble Lord’s invitation to have a conversation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to explore her experience and see whether it is transferable to what we are discussing here.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hesitated to intervene in this debate, but with the leave of the House I will add a thought for the Minister. Keeping training up to date is important because the understanding of the issues is developing quite dramatically. Nobody would have identified the acronym VAWG not that long ago and our understanding of what comprises violence against women and girls, for instance, is developing very fast.

Lord Bellamy: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as always, made a very pertinent point: we must have up-to-date training. Both learning and knowledge in this area are developing very quickly. That is quite a challenge for the authorities, but we should meet it— I fully accept that. Of course, under the compliance framework, there are powers to issue non-compliance notices and to understand why agencies are falling down. Almost certainly, a lack of training will be an explanatory factor in underperformance, so that will be overseen by Ministers, the criminal justice agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner.
The annual report is also a useful vehicle for focusing on areas for improvement, and it may well be that training will be one of them. If training is not mentioned, noble Lords will ask why and demand to know what is going on. We have a framework for testing and improving the system as we go along. I hope that what I have said so far will enable the various amendments that I have dealt with—in essence, those of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell—not to be pressed.
That takes me to the important Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for which I thank her. We have discussed the issue that arises. The question here is whether the victims’ right to review scheme strikes the right balance. I was not sure, but  I have just received a message that confirms my understanding: I do not think that it is a gap caused by our exit from the EU. The EU directive on victims provided for that scheme, but a Court of Appeal decision—R (Chaudhry) v DPP [2016]—found the present scheme to be compliant with the directive. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, did not raise the EU point directly—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did—but it is something of a red herring.
It is worth saying that, in that case, which is one that influences the Lord Chancellor, the Court of Appeal said that a requirement to halt the prosecution process, while the position of several individuals who might have been charged was reviewed, risks slowing down the whole thing. You have to go up through a process, and the whole time you are balancing whether you want to slow down the prosecution process by having internal reviews of who should be charged or whether you get on with prosecuting the person who is charged. The Government’s overall position is that that balance—the way that it should work—is broadly right. There are some difficult trade-offs here: time spent by independent prosecutors reviewing the evidence in cases involving multiple suspects is time that they would no longer spend charging someone else or pursuing the prosecution. You are making a trade-off in all these cases.
The point that I do accept, which is a fair point made by the noble Baroness, is that the present situation under the right to review scheme and the accompanying ability to lodge a complaint is not very well communicated. I can commit to making it clear in the victims’ code what the options are for victims in cases where the prosecution proceeds against one but not all suspects. I am not sure that I can go so far as to define in advance what the exceptional circumstances might be, because, by their very nature, we do not quite know what they are until they have happened. The approach of a case-by-case basis is, in the Government’s view, the right one to take in this matter.
However, to address the wider issues of making sure that victims understand why decisions are taken in cases, this is an important issue, and we have seen it highlighted in the recent Nottingham case, for example. Therefore, there have been conversations and there will be further conversations between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions about encouraging prosecutors to initiate further discussion with victims when decisions are made not to proceed in those types of cases. I cannot mention Nottingham because there are ongoing proceedings, but that was a decision to make one charge rather than another.
This whole area of communicating to victims is under the microscope at the moment. There is no reason why the matter we are on, rightly raised by the noble Baroness, should not be part of those conversations, and to align this aspect with the CPS work ongoing through the victim transformation programme should introduce a more proactive policy of communication from the CPS with the victims. I think the Attorney-General believes that this will go at least some way forward to addressing the point raised by the noble Baroness without creating additional pressures on the criminal justice system through diverting resources from the most important job of pressing on with the prosecutions that we have.
Therefore, while completely understanding the points made, I hope the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendments.
Amendment 9 agreed.

Amendments 10 to 12

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
10: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, after “victims” insert “require”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
11: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “should be provided with”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
12: Clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out “should be able to access” and insert “access to”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Amendments 10 to 12 agreed.

Amendment 13

Baroness Coussins: Moved by Baroness Coussins
13: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, after “services” insert “, including professionally qualified interpreters and translators”

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, Amendment 13 is in my name. I remind the House about my various interests in relation to languages and linguists.
In Committee, I proposed four amendments in relation to language services, but I accepted the Minister’s argument, in relation to three of them anyway, that they concerned operational detail rather than matters of principle and were therefore more appropriate for guidance or regulations in the future than for putting in the Bill. However, the fourth of my amendments in Committee and the subject of the amendment I have tabled this evening is in a different category altogether. I feel very strongly that it is a matter of principle, which is why I have brought it back at this stage. It is the principle that, where interpreting and translation services are needed by victims, as they have a right to expect under the victims’ code, those interpreters and translators should be qualified and professional.
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister and his officials for meeting me twice and for giving careful, serious attention to the points I made in Committee about the importance of this issue. I understand that there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to add new points to the Bill. I had thought that by getting this issue into the Bill itself, it would be given more weight and less wriggle room. However, I also understand that the intention now is that the status of the code itself will be effectively upgraded and more binding than it is at present.
We have heard this evening about the very welcome government amendments about, for example, a statutory duty on relevant bodies to provide services in accordance with the revised code and a duty of compliance on relevant public bodies. Therefore, in the light of all that, I can see that my fears of non-compliance with anything short of what is actually in the Bill could fall away because of this elevated status.
I have been very encouraged by what has been suggested to me by the Minister as a positive alternative to my amendment. I assume that he will be sharing with the House what he has already been generous enough to share with me, which is a significant strengthening of the wording of the relevant parts of the victims’ code in relation to interpreting and translation services. I have consulted with the Chartered Institute of Linguists, the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, and the Bell Foundation, and all these organisations also regard the proposed draft revisions to the code as a very welcome step in the right direction.
I suppose I should not say any more about what is proposed myself, as I am sure that the Minister will want to do that. Suffice it to say that the two key words “professional” and “qualified” make a decisive appearance in the proposed revisions. If the Minister confirms this tonight, I will regard it as a positive outcome that delivers on my objective and shows that the Government have taken my point seriously, and I thank the Minister most sincerely for his engagement and his willingness to get this right.
I hope that these changes, if they come to fruition, will mean that we will no longer see services resorting to drafting in the court usher, the hospital porter who happens to speak Polish, the neighbour’s teenage son because he is doing Spanish at school or the man who runs the Chinese restaurant up the road. These are all real examples that have been brought to my attention. I hope that, if we are looking instead at what should be there, which is to do with professional, qualified interpreters and translators, all that will be a thing of the past.
In closing, I caution the Minister and his department to be aware that there will be very close monitoring of these aspects of the revised victims’ code to assess compliance. It is well worth reflecting that the use of professional, qualified interpreters and translators is not just right and proper for the victims, who need their services; it cuts both ways, also enabling those responsible for the administration of justice and the quality of justice to understand better what has happened and what needs to be done about it. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and, for the moment, I beg to move.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, from these Benches we pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her absolute and consistent determination that we should be reminded about the need for professionally qualified interpreters. We had a good debate in Committee on her previous amendments. I will not repeat what I said then. I have torn up what I was going to say because I will be very interested to know what the Minister is going to say. I hope that the noble Baroness gets some very good news.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has pursued this matter doggedly. We have all received emails updating us on the discussions. I too look forward to what the Minister says. We all have our own horror stories of inappropriate translation and interpretation. I am sure that the Minister has from his career, too; it is a feature of life in courts and the wider criminal justice system. Nevertheless, I will listen with anticipation to what the Minister has to say.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, talking of experiences, my abiding memory is of a case in the county court where the interpreter opened the proceedings by telling the judge that he was deaf. Matters deteriorated from there.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, very much for her Amendment 13. The Government recognise that victims must be confident that the criminal justice process will be accessible to them so that they can participate effectively, regardless of their first language. We think that details of the specialist support services are better in the code, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue.
As she is aware, we have been drafting strengthening content for right 1 of the victims’ code, which is the right to understand and be understood, ahead of publicly consulting after this Bill has received Royal Assent. This strengthened wording makes it clear that victims are entitled to access interpreting and translation services from qualified professionals. “Qualified” and “professionals” are the decisive words that the noble Baroness referred to. I hope that I have reassured her that we have heard and considered her arguments carefully and are committed to addressing their intent through the victims’ code. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendment.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, all I can do is once again thank the Minister and, indeed, all noble Lords who have supported my amendment throughout the process of this Bill and all who have spoken this evening in support. I thank the Bill team as well as the Minister, because they have all been extremely helpful in our discussions. I look forward to the public consultation on a revised, strengthened victims’ code, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendments 14 and 15

Lord Bellamy: Moved by Lord Bellamy
14: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out “should have”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
15: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out “should be able” and insert “the ability”  Member's explanatory statementThis amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Amendments 14 and 15 agreed.
Amendment 16 not moved.

Amendment 17

Baroness Fox of Buckley: Moved by Baroness Fox of Buckley
17: Clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert—“(e) should be able to secure access to support from an individual of the same sex as registered at birth and women-only support service provision should be confined to those registered women at birth.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 17 and 18. It is interesting listening to the discussion that we have had this evening, because many people that I speak to, particularly women, assume that the consultation on the victims’ code or discussions on enhancing victims’ rights will mean better support for female victims, particularly in relation to service provision. All that Amendment 17 seeks to do is to clarify what I am sure is the intention of the Bill, which is to be supportive of, for example, single-sex provision for women and the appropriate service provision that can be given, and to ensure that we know what we are talking about.
It might appear that getting a commitment that police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities will all work together to commission support services for, for example, victims of domestic abuse or sexual abuse, ensuring that they can access the services that they need, and lots of discussion about services by women and for women, would be clear enough. However, as I explained in Committee and in a much-appreciated and helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and officials— I back up what others have said about how it was refreshing to have a Minister, or someone from the team, who is prepared to talk to us quite openly—having heard from the charity Sex Matters, all is not as it seems. I fear that, if the Government do not address this by sorting out the language and clarifying matters, their aspiration to enhance female victims’ rights will suffer because of confusion over the law and over the definition of sex.
“By women and for women” might seem a straightforward proposition until we ask, “What is a woman?” In 2024, that has become a contentious question. Over recent years, we have lost clarity over what we mean by the categories “men” and “women”, and that can undermine women’s services. This has happened due to the insistence from some quarters—often very powerful quarters—that women’s services must be trans inclusive by including men who identify as women in what should be women-only provision.
For example, the terms of references for Avon and Somerset Police women’s independent advisory group—to use just one example—state: “In this group we use ‘women’ as a term that is inclusive of the legally protected characteristic of female sex and gender identity as well  as gender expression and those who are perceived and treated as women and those who identify as women”. This is such an expansive, non-material, confusing definition of women.
The amendment is simply trying to ensure that, where the victims’ code talks about services for women or makes any assumption that there will be services for women victims, we use the clear category of “sex as registered at birth”, rather than that ever-expansive term in which women—as in biological natal women—are merely a subcategory of this newly expanded definition of women.
Sometimes we are told that, unless trans women are treated as women, it would be in breach of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act. The Government need to clarify the law in this regard because, in fact and in law, a service can be female-only as a matter of policy. Apart from anything else, the Equality Act requires public authorities to have due regard to meeting the specific needs of women.
Another misunderstood factor is that even when a person has acquired a different gender under the Gender Recognition Act, that does not affect the status of the person as a man or a woman in relation to the Equality Act. Indeed, it would be helpful if the Government could give clear guidance to people applying for GRCs that this change in documentation does not give them the right to access services or spaces set aside for the opposite sex. Such clear guidance would also be helpful for service providers and commissioners, and in relation to how people read the victims’ code.
I want to illustrate the negative impact of these kinds of confusions on women victims seeking help by citing a worrying but brilliant piece of investigative journalism. Children of Transitioners has collated evidence that there is no women-only service provision in Bristol. This mirrors exactly the situation in Brighton that I described in some detail in Committee. I have detailed examples from Bristol, but I appreciate that the House will not bear with me so I will not go through them. Needless to say, if you are a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted or suffers domestic abuse and reports it to police officers in Bristol, they will suggest to these distraught women—these victims—where they can get further support. They may well be sent to “by women and for women” provision, which those police officers feel are safe spaces. It is just that when you actually look at the provision in Bristol, you will find consistently that women-only services are also accessible to and welcome trans women. Trans women are men who identify as women and should be provided with services as appropriate, but not in women-only services. So this provision is not actually women only; it is mixed sex.
I was struck by the fact that, when the integrated care board of Bristol lists a range of “by women and for women” organisations, an example it gives is Womankind. Noble Lords would think that, with a title like that, the clue would be in the name. Womankind calls itself a service for women and girls. Online, it displays lovely suffragette colours. What is not to like? Actually, in correspondence with Womankind, another story emerges. Womankind says that it is for women and for
“those who identify as such in a significant way, including those who experience discrimination as … for instance, trans women … and non-binary”.
Womankind confirmed, after the investigation was done, that there is not one abuse support service in Bristol for natal women victims alone. Its advice for those unhappy with the situation was to “try London”, which seems extraordinary.
I use these examples because I know from replies from the Dispatch Box and at the meeting that there is very much a feeling that this is not a problem that the Government have detected when meeting service providers and commissioners. It is important to dig beneath the language of saying, “There is provision available; what’s the problem?”. It depends on who you ask. Bristol Women’s Voice—an organisation that claims to represent women’s voices to the council and to the police—does not see a problem, so in that sense if the Government were talking to that organisation they would think that there is no problem. But Bristol Women’s Voice does not think there is a problem because it also has a policy of trans-plus inclusion in relation to its definition of what a woman is.
It would also be naive not to look at the evidence about layers of public bodies and local authorities being lobbied and influenced by ideologically driven NGOs such as Stonewall, which has been much in the news of late. Ministers also tell us that it is up to service providers to choose the most appropriate services. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, heard from the evidence from Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater in the Sex Matters report, Women’s Services: a Sector Silenced, that many of those who provide women-only services often self-censor to placate funders and to avoid being investigated, ostracised, disciplined or maligned as bigots, all of which are career-threatening.
In case you think this is all hyperbole and question what I am talking about, there is a very similar pattern here to those whistleblowing medics at the Tavistock Clinic whose stories of malpractice have now so vividly been exposed in the Cass review as true. They were maligned for raising them. It is to the credit of Victoria Atkins that her excellent Statement in the other place drew this out. Credit is also due to Wes Streeting from the Opposition, who also accepted that the Cass review was an important step forward. Kemi Badenoch made the point:
“Had those who warned that gender services in the NHS had been hijacked by ideologues been listened to instead of gagged, children would not have been harmed and the Cass review would not have been required”.
So, although I am making a fuss, I want to say to the Government that maybe they should listen to the warnings from whistleblowers in the women’s services sector who are explaining that we are denying women victims single-sex provision, causing great harm and trauma for vulnerable women who might self-exclude and might well not even seek support if services to which they are referred may include men identifying as women.
I will say something very quickly about Amendment 18, because I discussed it fully in Committee. This is an attempt to use the victims’ code to tackle a loophole whereby, if incarcerated or registered sex offenders  change their gender, even just by a self-declaration, they are afforded enhanced privacy protection that allows their new identity to disappear from view in terms of criminal justice and normal safeguarding procedures and before criminal justice bodies. Through the sensitivity applications route, a sex offender who changes their gender identity can conceal their past identity and sex for the purpose of, for example, disclosure and barring services—DBS—checking processes. This means that a sex offender’s past name and identity are not displayed on any DBS certificates; they can have their self-declared gender identity instead.
In Committee, I explained that the reason I knew about this loophole was due to the story of Clive Bundy. He was imprisoned for 15 years in 2016 for sexually abusing his own daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin, throughout her childhood, but was released half way through his sentence. Clive Bundy changed his gender before his early release and became a self-identifying woman, named Claire Fox. This is what drew my attention to this particular case.
This amendment tackles the anomaly that, due to Bundy’s enhanced privacy rights in relation to his gender change, Ceri-Lee, his victim and his daughter, had no right to know that he had been released as a woman called Claire. After his release, Clive Bundy, also known as Claire Fox, went to live in the same town as his daughter and her daughter. As Claire Fox, he could apply for jobs or to be a volunteer locally and work with children, including potentially his own granddaughter and no one would know. Any DBS check would not show up red flags and the family would not be forewarned. Amendment 18 wants the Government to look at whether they can do something about this loophole.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for tabling Amendment 17, which seeks to ensure that victims are able to access support from someone of the same sex, as registered at birth, and that women-only support service provision is confined to those registered as women at birth. I also want to thank the noble Baroness and Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce from Sex Matters for their time in discussing these matters with me yesterday, ahead of this debate.
From the outset, let me be clear that this Government recognise the importance of a victim feeling confident that they can ask for particular things, such as someone of a particular sex to make them feel comfortable and help them best engage with support. We also recognise that single-sex services can and should be provided in some circumstances. That is why we have written to providers who receive funding from our rape and sexual abuse support fund to make clear our expectation that they should take reasonable steps to provide spaces which exclude service users who are not biologically female or male, where that has been requested by a victim and where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in line with the Equality Act 2010.
I have listened to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness and reassure her that officials regularly engage with those commissioning and providing services through  ongoing grant-management processes. We will continue to use these channels to understand whether there are any barriers experienced in the delivery of single-sex services, and how the Government might support services to address them—and we will continue the conversation that we have started with Sex Matters to carefully consider how we can best serve victims.
In relation to support workers, we have included a dedicated section on tailoring support to meet victims’ needs in the draft independent domestic violence adviser and independent sexual violence adviser—IDVA and ISVA—guidance. It sets out different considerations for supporting male and female victims, which may include a preference for a particular sex of their IDVA or ISVA.
The noble Baroness asked specifically what we were doing to improve this guidance. The draft guidance has a specific section on how IDVAs and ISVAs may respond to meet the needs of different types of victims. This includes examples of how they may tailor their support to meet the distinct needs of female and male victims. For example, the guidance recommends how the IDVA or ISVA can address commonly held misconceptions about female and male victims that may prevent them from reporting their experiences. It also highlights that some victims may prefer to be supported by a worker of their own sex and to access single-sex services, where available.
Ultimately, as referred to by the noble Baroness, we consider that service providers are best placed to engage with the needs of victims and adjust their service accordingly. There is a practical element to this, too: while we know that providers will do their utmost to take into account the preferences of the victim, they are clearly constrained by their staff’s skills, expertise, capacity and availability to ensure that they meet the victim’s needs. It is for that reason that it is simply not workable to seek to entitle victims to a particular support worker they have requested.
Beyond that, I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness’s suggestion that, in all cases, victims should be entitled to support from someone of the same sex,  as registered at birth. To require this to happen in all cases requested, service providers may need intentionally to exclude transgender persons from support roles which, depending on the circumstances, could amount to unlawful discrimination pursuant to the Equality Act 2010.
Finally, I make a legal point, but an important one: the victims’ code would not provide the legal effect being sought by this amendment. Mirroring the current scope of the victims’ code, the amendment that we have tabled, which imposes a duty to provide services in accordance with the code, applies only to persons who have functions of a public nature; it would not extend to third parties that provide support services for victims. As such, we could not set expectations to deliver services in a certain way through the victims’ code. For these reasons, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: At this late hour, I will read what has been said in Hansard and write with any clarifications, if that is okay with the Minister. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a straightforward issue, because of the ideological context in which it is occurring. I hope that noble Lords will read the Cass review and details of the brilliant discussion on it yesterday in the other place, and see that this is not simply a technical matter. That needs to be taken into account.
I also register my great disappointment that noble Lords from the Opposition parties had nothing to say in relation to single-sex provision for women victims. However late it is and however unpopular I am, I just think it is a shame. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 17 withdrawn.
Amendment 18 not moved.
Consideration on Report adjourned.
House adjourned at 9.35 pm.